About Me
  Strange Politics Home Page | Things George Bush May Say | Arnold vs Arnold | The General Public Speaks out About the California Recall | Comments Posted by Doug From Indiana at The 2004 Election Debate  

Comments Posted by Doug From Indiana at The 2004 Election Debate

1. by Doug in Indiana
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to
people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an
observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to
Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which
was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to
be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific
laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim
the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus

21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with any woman while she is in her
period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims
that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who
sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can
help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and

2. by Doug in Indiana
According to the latest figures from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, President Bush's fiscal 2004 budget includes $1.6 trillion in additional tax cuts over the upcoming decade. Counting the /home/free/cgi-bin/util/sitebuilder.4 trillion in added interest on the national debt that the tax cuts will entail, the total cost over the fiscal 2003-13 period will be almost trillion if the plan is adopted by Congress” billion more than the administration previously estimated.

In comparison, the Bush tax cut plan enacted in 2001 was projected to cost $1.6 trillion over its first decade including interest.

In the current fiscal year, the Joint Committee data show that the President's new tax cut plan will cost billion, thus providing virtually no stimulus to our ailing economy. But by fiscal 2013, Bush's new tax cut proposals will cost billion a year including interest.

“If the President's new tax cuts are enacted, it appears that our national debt will approach trillion by the end of 2013, counting the amount owed to the Social Security trust fund, said Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice.

When Bush took office, the national debt, including the amount owed to Social Security, was .5 trillion and headed sharply down. But Bush's new budget projects a .5 trillion debt by the end of 2008, including amounts owed to Social Security. The President refuses to offer an estimate for the size of the debt a decade from now, but the likely figure under the President policies is close to trillion.

“So much for the President's worthless promise not to send the bill for his irresponsible tax-cutting program to our children, McIntyre said.


3. by Doug in Indiana
The truth about taxes

Pssst. What you save in federal taxes this year you may hand over in higher state and local taxes.
June 10, 2003: 8:40 AM EDT
By Sarah Max, Staff Writer for CNN/Money

New York (CNN/Money) - The billion in federal tax cuts pushed through in late May promise immediate gratification for many of us, in the form of child tax credits, lower income-tax rates and lower dividend tax rates.

Individual tax situations are as distinct as snowflakes, of course. But according to estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, a household with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of ,000 to ,000 will save about $1,700 this year.


• Taxpayer, beware!

Before you run out and spend your tax windfall, though, you might want to think about this: at the same time Uncle Sam is giving us a break, cash-strapped state and local governments are raising taxes and rolling out new fees.

When all is said and done, in fact, you may have less money in the bank.

Up to their ears in red ink
To say that state and local governments are in a budget crisis is a whopper of an understatement. At the same time they are collecting less revenue, their expenses are rising -- in part because of costly new programs many instituted during the late 1990s. In addition, states have been hit with the bill for new, federally mandated programs, such as homeland security.

Desperate Times...
A sampling of proposed state-tax increases.

State Tax proposals under consideration
Alaska Motor fuel and seasonal sales
Arkansas Tobacco and income taxes
California Sales, cigarette and income
Delaware Income and sales
Montana Tobacco, rental cars, sales
Nebraska Cigarette, sales, income
Nevada Cigarette, liquor, gaming, property
New Jersey Cigarette, hotel, casino, cellular svc.
Pennsylvania Income, malt beverage, reckless driver surcharges
South Carolina Cigarette

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

Unlike the federal government, which can run huge budget deficits, every state, with the exception of Vermont, is required by law to balance its budget. With a projected combined shortfall billion to billion for the 2004 fiscal year, or about 15 percent of their total budgets, state legislatures are struggling to make ends meet.

Initially, states relied heavily on "funky" budgetary mechanisms, such as shifting pay dates or tapping into tobacco settlement money, explained Nik Johnson, director of the state fiscal project for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The state of Illinois, for example, is trying to sell its glassy Chicago Loop landmark, the James R. Thompson Center, to help fill its budget gaps.

Raising sin taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and gambling was the next line of defense. Spending cuts followed, with states slashing education budgets, postponing prison construction, imposing hiring freezes and scaling back on healthcare programs, among other measures.

Next in what Johnson described as the "hierarchy of pain" are fees and other "revenue enhancements."

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Alaska is looking to raise money via studded tire surcharges, wildlife conservation passes and other fees. Georgia is considering discontinuing an exemption on driver's license fees for organ donors. Massachusetts wants to increase to court-related fees and title registration fees. Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska and more than a dozen other states, meanwhile, are planning to raise tuition at state colleges.

"They've done everything they could to not raise taxes," said John Logan, a tax analyst for CCH Incorporated. "Now they seem to have exhausted the alternatives."

Indeed, roughly 30 to 35 states have raised taxes this year or are seriously considering it, said Johnson.

"New York has already raised taxes by about billion and in California something like billion in tax increases has been proposed," said Scott Moody, senior economist for the Tax Foundation. "Right there you have billion offsetting what the federal government has done, which amounts to 20 percent of the (federal) tax cuts for this year."

That's just the states. Individual counties, cities and school districts have taken similar steps. (See "Taxes: The bane of the housing boom.")

"You're seeing user fees that are supposed to cover the cost of a specific service but increasingly they are used for general revenue," said Bruce Katz, director of the Center on Urban and Metro Policy at the Brookings Institution, describing the situation in many cities. "In L.A. the mayor was thinking of hiring 350 new police officers by raising fees at the zoo. That just gives you a sense of how out of whack the system is."

Who pays in the end?
Whether or not your personal budget will end up in the black or at a deficit depends. This year, married filers with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of more than $1 million will save ,000, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. If that's you, increases on the state and local level may seem a drop in the bucket.

Now, let's say you're a married couple with an adjusted gross income of ,000 to ,000. The Urban-Brookings center estimates that households like yours will save an average of in federal taxes this year.

If you live in Troy, N.Y., the school district's share of property taxes alone could add to your taxes this year, on average. If you're planning to send your child to one of the City University of New York schools, you can expect to pay more for in-state tuition.

Then, if you go ahead and spend your federal tax savings -- you run into more taxes. Not only did New York just raise its sales tax by one-quarter of a percentage point, it suspended its exemption on clothing purchases under . In your county, the tax on clothes under just jumped from nothing to 8.25 percent.

4.by Doug in Indiana
In 1977, a secret federal virus program produced 15,000 gallons of AIDS. The record reveals the United States was represented by Dr. Robert Gallo and the USSR was represented by Dr. Novakhatsky of the diabolical Ivanosky Institute. On August 21, 1999, the world first saw the flowchart of the plot to thin the Black Population.

The 1971 AIDS flowchart coordinates over 20,000 scientific papers and fifteen years of progress reports of a secret federal virus development program. The epidemiology of AIDS is an identical match to the "research logic" identified in the five section foldout. The flowchart is page 61 of Progress Report #8 (1971) of the Special Virus program of the United States of America. We today, challenge world scientists to discussion of this document find.

We believe there is a daily, growing number of world experts who are all coming to the same conclusion regarding the significance of the flowchart. Dr. Garth Nicolson has examined the flowchart as well as other top experts from around the world. It is time for Dr. Michael Morrissey of Germany to examine the flowchart and report to the world. In addition, we have now examined the 1978 report. It is heresy to continue to further argue the program ended in 1977.

The 1978 report of the development of AIDS leaves no doubt as to the ("narrow result") candidate virus sought by the United States. The flowchart conclusively proves a secret federal plot to develop a "contagious cancer" that "selectively kills."

Following the presentation of the flowchart in Canada, the same information was presented to the United States in the rotunda of the Western Reserve Historical Society in Cleveland. Shortly thereafter a major African newspaper called and for four days in a row, this issue was the feature story in an uncensored press. The people of Africa already know about the U.S. virus development program. It is time for the rest of us to know.

In January, the U.S. had no response to my two page abstract submitted to the African American AIDS 2000 conference. In February, the U.S. Congress had no response to the 3000 Americans who signed signature petitions calling for immediate review of the flowchart and progress reports of the secret virus development program. We firmly believe once the dust settles from the current election marathon, reviewing the special virus program will be the single most important pursuit of the 21st Century.

More scientists and doctors must join with Dr. Nicolson, Dr. Strecker, Dr. Cantwell, Dr. Horowitz, Dr. Lee, Dr. Wainwright, Dr. Halstead and Professor Boyle. In any public debate on this issue, we will continue to present the flowchart of the secret virus development program, as the "irrefutable missing link" in the true laboratory origin of AIDS.

We have successfully navigated a federal maze and matrix and found a curtain surrounding the issue of AIDS. The 1999 discovery and presentation of the AIDS flowchart is a "smoke detector" wake up call. Society has an obligation to do more than don masks.

Non-inclusive random endnotes:

U.S. Special Virus program, Progress Report #8 (1971), pg. 61 (the flowchart)

National Security Defense Memorandum (NSDM) #314, Brent Scowcroft (1975).

"Special Message to the U.S. Congress on Problems of Population Growth", Richard M. Nixon, July 18, 1969

Public Law 91-213, "To Stabilize World Populations", John D. Rockefeller, III, Chairman, March 16, 1970

National Security Council Memorandum (NSCM) #46, "Black Africa and the U.S. Black Movement", Zbigniew Brezinski, March 17, 1978

Click here to download the 1971 U.S. Special Virus Research Logic Flow Chart!

~ average download time varies ~

113766 have accessed Dr. Graves' essay on the 1971 Special Virus Research Logic Flow Chart since February 15, 2001. Dr. Graves has provided copies of the U.S. Virus Flow Chart to many medical doctors, public health experts, and members of Congress. To preview expert commentary on Dr. Graves' 1971 U.S. Special Virus Flow Chart discovery,click here.
I would like everyone to look at this link, and if you are a doctor, please disprove this doctors findings, he has been asking for years now.


5.by Doug in Indiana
Barry Seal
He was supposedly murdered by Medellin cartel members, but a 6-month investigation by Sam Dalton, attorney for three of the accused murderers, into Mr. Seal's life and death uncovered some interesting points. The accused's cartel connections were well known, but not their association with Oliver North's enterprise. Mr. Seal was a drug smuggler, up to his armpits in smuggling cocaine for - guess who? - the CIA. During the penalty phase of the Columbians' trial, testimony by one government witness on the activities of Mr. Seal was so damaging to the government that 2 of the jurors wanted to change their verdict to "not guilty". The personal telephone number of George H. W. Bush was found in the trunk of Mr. Seal's car.
Don Aronow
He was a close friend of George H. W. Bush. According to the book "George Bush, the Unauthorized Biography," there is compelling evidence to conclude that Aronow was a drug smuggler and suspected drug-money launderer. He was murdered by professional killers on February 3, 1987. In the days before his death, he made many personal calls to George H. W. Bush.

6.by Doug in Indiana

The central concept of supply-side economics is that tax cuts cause economic growth. Tax cuts allow entrepreneurs to invest their tax savings, which creates higher productivity, jobs and profits. This, ironically, allows the entrepreneur and his new workers to pay even more taxes, even at lower rates.

The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists -- even conservative ones -- almost universally reject supply-side theory. In the early 80s, the influential and multi-partisan American Economics Association had 18,000 members. Only 12 called themselves supply-side economists.1 In American universities, there is no major department that could be called "supply-side," and there is no supply-side economist at any major department.2 This is significant, because academia in the 70s was dominated by conservative economic theory, and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention. The fact that they scrutinized supply-side theory and rejected it wholesale gives eloquent testimony to the theory's bankruptcy. When candidate George Bush called it "voodoo economics" in the 1980 presidential campaign, he was doing so with the full backing of America's economic community.

Many people are surprised to learn that "conservative" does not necessarily equate to "supply-side" economics. The difference lies in spending. Mainstream conservative economists generally believe that tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts -- that is, fiscal responsibility. Supply-side economists believe that taxes should be cut -- period. Spending cuts and deficits, they believe, are not important considerations. The 1980 supply-siders claimed that the growth resulting from tax cuts would be so great, and the total tax collections increased so much, that America would simply outgrow its deficits. This did not happen, of course. Growth in the 80s was no greater than growth in the 70s, as the statistics here will show. But the national debt nearly tripled under Reagan. Who deserved blame for this is a controversy that continues to this day.

Supply-siders point out that their theories are not wrong simply because academia rejects them. This would be falling for the "argument from authority" fallacy. After all, it was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. Besides, scientific revolutions have always started out as minority opinions, which have often faced hostility from the consensus of the time. Although these are worthy points, they are not conclusive arguments against the value of scientific consensus. These are, after all, our best and brightest scholars, whose day jobs are to analyze these issues. Their theories should be among the first we consider. It does not mean that they are correct, of course, but more often than not their information is better, and their theories more coherent, than the average person's.

Who were the 1980 supply-siders? The following is my summary of Paul Krugman, one of the world's top economists, who gives an excellent account of their rise in his book, Peddling Prosperity. The supply-siders were what many have called "cranks," or people who stand outside the scientific mainstream and hurl accusations of basic stupidity and corruption at the entire scientific community. Cranks are people who are cut off from their academic colleagues, who neither argue before scientific conferences nor write for peer-reviewed journals. Instead, they speak before groups they themselves organize, and write for publications they themselves edit.

An unusually high percentage of supply-siders were not economists at all, but journalists with no formal training. Robert Bartley, who has run the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal for nearly 25 years, was perhaps the movement's greatest spokesman. (His contempt for his critics can be seen in one of his chapters on the Reagan Years, entitled: "What You Learned If You Were Awake.") Other journalists included Jude Wanniski and Irving Kristol. Crusading in their national publications, they were able to reach a much wider and more popular audience than most economists could. Of course, journalists are normally reporters of stories, not creators of theories. You would expect them to report the latest cure for cancer -- but not claim that they had discovered such a cure themselves. This is common sense in most fields like biology and physics, but, for some reason, it is a line that many journalists like Bartley and Wanniski frequently cross when it comes to economics.

The movement did have a few intellectuals, but even here, its professors were far from the mainstream. Arthur Laffer has a Ph.D. in economics, but he has contributed little to scientific conferences or peer-reviewed journals, instead playing to crowds on the lecture circuit and writing for popular publications. He is famous for the Laffer Curve, which purports to show that productivity declines as taxation increases. Most economists agree that the general principle behind the Laffer Curve is correct, but widely disagree on how much taxation is necessary before productivity starts declining. Laffer believed that the effects of taxation were so heavy that cutting them would significantly boost productivity, thereby outgrowing any deficits caused by the tax cuts. Again, this prediction proved false.

Another supply-side economist was Paul Craig Roberts, a Congressional staffer for quarterback-turned-Congressman Jack Kemp. Another was Martin Anderson, who, stung by academia's refusal to hire supply-side economists, would go on to write a bitter tirade against academia in a book entitled Impostors in the Temple.

The movement has always claimed, however, that world-famous trade economist Robert Mundell was the father of supply-side theory. Although Mundell has never discouraged this impression, there is little evidence that it is true. Some of his beliefs -- for example, on the causes of the Great Depression -- go against the very fundamentals of supply-side theory. Mundell established his international reputation early in his career, but over the years his behavior has become increasingly bizarre and eccentric. He long ago dropped out of the academic circuit, and now accuses his former colleagues of "sheer quackery." But he remains more of a mascot than an intellectual founder of the movement.

So where did the supply-side ideas actually come from? From Laffer and Bartley, developed over a series of dinner conversations at Michael 1, a famous restaurant near Wall Street. It was here, scribbling on napkins, that Wanniski showed Bartley the magical effects of tax cuts. Krugman writes: "There it was that [Bartley] and Laffer discovered that Keynesian economics was logically inconsistent - an insight that had eluded [Nobel laureate] Paul Samuelson and a few thousand other people over the course of hundreds of academic conferences. They also discovered that Milton Friedman was wrong in believing that monetary policy could have important effects on the economy - an insight that had similarly eluded [Nobel laureates] Friedman, Lucas and the faculty of the University of Chicago over a generation of notoriously brutal conferences. And the results of these deep thoughts over dinner were for the most part published -- surprise -- on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, or in Kristol's Public Interest."3

Why Reagan by-passed thousands of qualified conservative economists for the council of a few supply-siders is a mystery. Perhaps the most likely reason was practical: the supply-siders told Reagan what he wanted to hear. To understand why, we should devote a paragraph to the economic problems that Reagan faced in 1980.

Until the 60s, there had been a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. Government could achieve low unemployment by accepting high inflation; or it could achieve low inflation by accepting high unemployment. Earlier presidents had opted for low unemployment, which the Federal Reserve accomplished by expanding the money supply, thus giving people more money to spend. Extra spending means extra jobs. However, Milton Friedman and others pointed out that business people would eventually come to expect these inflationary increases, and they would simply compensate for them by raising their prices by the anticipated amount. This would not only negate the job-creating effect that more money in circulation would bring, but also make inflation worse. Eventually, they predicted, inflation would shoot up and then so would unemployment, breaking the tradeoff between them, and forming a twin monster that Paul Samuelson dubbed "stagflation." And, true enough, this is precisely what happened in the 70s.

Economists in the late 70s were at a loss for a cure. To fight high inflation, governments traditionally raise interest rates and cut government spending. To fight high unemployment, they do the opposite. Thus, fighting one dragon would only make the other worse. But the supply-siders told Reagan they had a solution. The Laffer Curve purported to show that tax cuts would actually increase tax collections. This meant that government could spend generously in an effort to curb unemployment, without requiring the burdensome taxes to pay for it. That was the first selling point.

The second selling point was Mundell's. Most economists believe that government spending and interest rates can only be used together, in tandem, to slay either one dragon or the other. But Mundell argued that they could be split up: government could spend generously to fight unemployment, and raise interest rates to fight inflation. Hedrick Smith writes: "...Mundell's argument was music to Reagan. A few advisors warned him that Mundell's approach would not work, could not work -- indeed, Reagan's own experience would prove that in 1982-83. But Reagan bought Mundell's theory anyway, for it told Reagan what he wanted to believe: that you could cut taxes, cut inflation, have economic growth, and balance the budget all at the same time." 4

The man charged to make this all work was David Stockman, Reagan's budget director. Stockman's genius and mastery of numbers was matched only by his relatively young age, which earned him the title of "whiz kid." Stockman, Roberts and Anderson came up with a massively optimistic forecast for the economy, which today Stockman derisively refers to as the "Rosy Scenario." The Rosy Scenario predicted that the 1981 tax cuts would produce 5 percent growth in 1982. (In fact, 1982 was the worst year since World War II, with negative growth of 2.2 percent.) Many budget-watchers pointed out that the tax cuts would only increase the deficit, but Stockman silenced all his critics with a blizzard of statistics and information. "Like a child prodigy chess champion playing fifty matches at once, Stockman answered every query, parried every countermove, checked every challenge," Smith writes. "Congress was mesmerized."5 Today, Stockman admits it was all a performance. "Even the appearance of being an expert is self-validating," he wrote five years later. "I didn't know much about budgets, but I knew more than the rest of them."6

But as early as August 1981, Stockman began having gnawing doubts about his budget. Computer simulations failed to project the tremendous growth he had predicted, and later he would admit to cooking the numbers (!) before selling the budget to Congress. That December, the Atlantic Monthly published an article in which Stockman made several damaging and embarrassing confessions about the entire supply-side philosophy. He admitted that the 1981 tax cut "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [tax] rate" for the wealthy. Cutting taxes for the rich had long ago been coined "trickle down economics" - and it was an unpopular concept with the middle class. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" Stockman told the interviewer. "So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."7

The Rosy Scenario failed to materialize. The economy did not grow out of its deficits. In 1986, Washington and the rest of the nation would again be surprised when Stockman confessed all in a book entitled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.

Return to Overview
1 James Carville, We're Right, They're Wrong: A Handbook for Spirited Progressives (New York: Random House, 1996), p. 12.
2 Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994), p. 85.
3Ibid., p. 91.
4 Hedrick Smith, The Power Game: How Washington Works (New York: Ballantine, 1988), p. 345.
5 Smith, p. 353.
6 David Stockman, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed (New York: Harper & Row, 1986), p. 56.
7 William Greider, "The Education of David Stockman," The Atlantic Monthly, December 1981, pp. 46-47.

7.by Doug in Indiana
new bush poll
i have study up much on the subject(as well as a two time inmate myself, hey i was young once also)

which is why i know people can change and change for the better.

some of the biggest problems i see with our prison and court system is this.

1. it could never cost 20,000 a year for each inmate.

hell i live on less then that on the street, know what i mean?

2. there is no way in hell that the crime rate will go down, when you let out violent murders in ten years and keep non violent pot growers locked up for 50 years, sorry folks it just dont happen.

we are all going to have to stand up cause right now there is over 2 million people locked up, over 60% for drug crimes.

now it could just be me, but i have never known anyone to fly over to afganistan and pick up a ton of heroin, have you.

chances are people within our government(cia) are bringing in the dope, i mean really, what average guy has the hook up in afganistan?

and to be honest about it, after 20 years, billions of dollars, and you can still buy crack a block from the whitehouse.

does that sound like it's working?

hey i got an ideal, lets waste 20 more years, billions more and lock up tons more people, then when we can still buy crack, we can say it dont work.

i have also worked for the dea as a c.i., of my own free will mind you, and i can say 100% that the government is not to worried about stoping drugs.

the fact is, i never heard ANYONE say they didn't want drugs cause they were illegal. people that want drugs do drugs, everyday.

lets wake up people.

of course mike there is bad apples in every bunch, but state and fed prison have more rules then a private prison(as far as oversite goes)

3. as far as prison reform goes........there is none.

hardly any schooling, most of these people work the kitchen, washing clothes and other jos while in prison, talk to other inmates, and after five years get out, with new ideals for crime and hating being away for 5 years, plus no new job skills and everyone wonders why 70% go back in.

8.by Doug in Indiana
The Guardian November 15, 2000

Prisons, profits and Governor George W Bush

by Tim Wheeler

Longhorn cows. Oil. They've made a few Texans rich and famous. But under
Governor George W Bush another industry is pumping out cash like an East
Texas gusher — private prisons!

George and Richard Wackenhut, owners of Wackenhut Corporation, operate 13
prisons in the Lone Star State. They are so enthusiastic about fellow
Republican George "Dubya" Bush and his race for the presidency that they
have contributed considerable sums to his election campaigns.

Bush's ties to the prison-industrial complex raise troubling questions
about his posturing as a "compassionate conservative". It sheds light on
his "lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" policy on the incarceration of drug
users — even though Bush does not deny reports that he snorted cocaine in
his youth.

It also reveals much about his hard-line support for the death penalty
which he has imposed 137 times since taking office, more than any other

Bush sent Shaka Sankofa (Gary Graham) to his death despite widespread doubt
about his guilt. He also executed Karla Faye Tucker, the first women in 100
years executed in Texas, despite worldwide calls for clemency.

The death penalty is a centerpiece of the GOP's [Republicans'] policy of
criminalising youth and people of colour.

That policy has resulted in the incarceration of 1.8 million people in US
prisons, rivalling the number of youth attending college.

At least US billion is spent each year on prison incarceration and the
"privatisers" of the GOP see this industry as a lush pasture for super-

More than 146,000 inmates are incarcerated in the Texas prison system,
according to the Sentencing Project. Almost another 58,000 are languishing
in local jails, for a grand total of 204,000 prison inmates.

Of these, over 63,000 or 45.3 per cent, are Black and almost 37,000 or 26.2
per cent, are Hispanic.

Texas has the nation's second highest rate of incarceration after

Prison industry

Back in 1994, Texas Comptroller John Sharp released a 384-page report on
the Texas prison system that sounded like President Eisenhower's farewell
warning against the "military industrial complex".

In a message to then-Governor Ann Richards, Sharp warned that the Texas
prison system's two-year budget was US billion, more than six per cent of
the state budget.

"Prison operating costs, not including their original construction or debt
service cost, have ballooned by some 2,000 per cent in the past decade and
will rise by another two-thirds by the turn of the century", he wrote.

At the time he was writing, another 76,000 prison beds were to be added to
the system, bringing total capacity to 145,000 inmates. But at the rate new
inmates were being added, the state would need 206,000 prison beds, he
wrote. (His projection was nearly on the mark.)

Sharp further warned of a "prison industrial complex" in Texas that will
fight attempts to reduce costs.

"Corrections has spawned its own self-perpetuating interest groups with
consultants, lobbyists, burgeoning state bureaucracies and a rising private
corrections industry. Like any special interest group, the correctional
industry is in business to keep its empire growing."

Slave labour

Again, this warning has come true with a vengeance under Governor Bush.
Just listen to Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas), a close crony of Bush. He has
proposed turning prisons into industrial parks.

"I want them to make prisoners work 10 hours a day, six days a week. I want
to enter into contracts with major manufacturers so that we can produce
component parts in prisons ... now being produced in places like Mexico,
China, Taiwan and Korea. We can defray about half the cost of keeping
people in prison."

The savings, ,000 annually per prisoner, could be used to build more
prisons and train more prison guards, Gramm said. He also proposed doubling
the number of graduates of the FBI Academy to oversee this prison boom.

Rep Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Crime, is the sponsor of legislation in the House to speed conversion to
private prisons. McCollum spearheaded the impeachment of President Clinton.

"Certainly Sen Gramm supports that legislation", said Jenny Gainsborough a
researcher at the Sentencing Project.

It may sound farfetched, but Bush is actively implementing the plan in

Wackenhut, based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, where it enjoys close,
mutually profitable ties to Governor Jeb Bush — and McCollum — has
generated hefty profits and lots of nasty headlines.

On December 16, 1999 the Texas Department of Corrections was forced to take
over the Travis County Community Justice Center, operated by Wackenhut,
when several women inmates filed a lawsuit charging that guards had beaten
and raped them.

The 11 Wackenhut thugs are now awaiting trial. Wackenhut's answer was that
they would end the practice of male guards overseeing female inmates.

The state of Louisiana was forced to take over the Wackenhut-operated Jena
Juvenile Justice facility this spring when inspectors found that guards
routinely beat and abused the youthful inmates.

A judge denounced conditions as "intolerable" with inmates denied adequate
food, clothing and health care. Many of the youths were barefooted.

More than 130 African, Latin American, and Asian inmates at a Wackenhut
operated Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detention center in
New York City went on a hunger strike last fall to protest their prolonged
incarceration and the denial of their appeals for asylum despite clear
proof that they faced death if sent back to Uganda, Nigeria, Colombia and
other countries.

The hunger strikers accused the Wackenhut guards of physical and verbal


Meanwhile, back in Texas, Wackenhut is prospering. About 25 miles south of
Austin, in the town of Lockhart, Wackenhut took over a prison and invited
corporations to set up a factory to employ inmates.

Leonard Hill, owner of a company in Austin that assembled circuit boards,
closed his factory — terminating 150 workers — and moved his plant to the
Wackenhut prison.

Texas taxpayers paid for the construction of a new factory built to Hill's
specifications for which he pays $1 per year in rent.

Hill's company, now called Lockhart Technologies Inc, employs 100 inmates
who assemble circuit boards for IBM, Dell and Texas Instruments, all non-

The inmates are paid the minimum wage with 80 per cent of their wages
deducted to pay "room and board" and "victim restitution". Texas taxpayers
cover the inmates' health care and workers' compensation.

Wackenhut's prison warden, Scott Comstock, told CAQ magazine's Reese
Erlich, "I think that Texas, in particular, has proven that privatisation
is a viable alternative."

Wackenhut Corp last year reported a 27 percent increase in revenues, to
US.3 million.

Joe Gunn, President of the Texas AFL-CIO, has accused Wackenhut of
profiting from "indentured slave labour" in its private Texas prisons.

This system of prison labour exerts a strong downward pressure on the wage
standard in "right-to-work" (for less) Texas.

US workers are forced to compete not only with non-union sweatshop labour
in places like Malaysia, but are also competing with prison labour in
Texas. And it isn't limited to Texas.

Oregon Prison Industries is producing "Prison Blues," stylish denim
garments sold for profit around the world.

Soledad Prison in California is also exporting garments made by prison

Prisoners in Southern California, Utah and Ohio are doing "data entry" for
profit-making corporations.

Wisconsin's GOP Governor Tommy Thompson approved a scheme that used
US,000 in taxpayer money to buy cutting and sewing machines that were
installed in its prison in Green Bay.

Fabry Glove and Mitten Company then closed down plants employing "free
workers" and moved into the prison garment shop where it employs 100

The total cost to taxpayers was $1.6 million and the loss of many jobs.

Wackenhut is surely licking its chops in anticipation of even greater
profits in its prison "industrial parks" at home and abroad if George W
Bush is elected President.

CIA & FBI ties

The rent-a-cop security corporation boasts that it has the nation's largest
private collection of files on alleged "subversives", with dossiers on
three million people in the United States.

In the 1970s, it diversified into strikebreaking and scab-herding.

Wackenhut works closely with the FBI and CIA, and guards nuclear weapons
facilities and embassies.

Recently, Wackenhut became the first private prison operator to take over a
federal prison, a facility that houses many of the 25,000 undocumented
immigrants detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Wackenhut operates 42 prisons across the United States. It has private
prisons in Puerto Rico, England, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.

More than 5,000 inmates from 14 states are now incarcerated at private
"rent-a-cell" facilities in Texas.

No wonder Texas has embraced "assembly line" procedures in its criminal
justice system, filling its prisons with profit-generating inmates.

Texas is also turning over many subsidiary services to private
corporations. A consortium of the Marriott Corporation and Paris-based
Sodexho are under contract to provide food services to private and state-
owned prisons.


The release of a videotape in 1997 of prison guards at Brazoria County
Detention Center in Texas beating and kicking inmates, attacking them with
a stun gun and a K-9 dog stirred much outrage.

These were prisoners who were lying shackled on the jail floor. They had
been convicted in Missouri but shipped to a Texas "rent-a-cell" facility
operated by Capital Correctional Resources (CCR). The State of Missouri
cancelled the contract and brought the inmates back to Missouri.

In August 1998, two Oregon sex offenders escaped from a prison in Houston
operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), largest of the
prison privatisers.

This was a minimum security facility used to house undocumented immigrant
workers arrested by the INS. But too many of the cells were vacant to give
CCA the desired profit margin. Without consulting state authorities, CCA
imported 240 sex offenders from Oregon.

The following month, a riot erupted at the Frio Detention Center, a private
prison operated by the Dove Development Corporation. Texas had to send in
30 state correctional officers to subdue the 300 inmates from Utah and

The Bobby Ross Group, based in Austin, operates seven prisons in Texas,
signing contracts to house inmates from Colorado, Missouri, Montana,
Oklahoma, Virginia and Hawaii.

Ross was a Texas sheriff who went into the private prison business in 1993.
At the Bobby Ross Prison in Dickens County, inmates organised a protest
against the inedible food and lack of proper medical care.


Montana sent an investigator who found that the inmates "were going hungry
and waiting days to see a doctor". But the Texas Commission on Jails gave
the jail "the highest possible ratings".

Their inspector later admitted that, in addition to his official duties, he
also worked as a "consultant" for the Bobby Ross Group, which paid him a
,000 annual retainer.

In December 1998, 11 inmates escaped from the Bobby Ross prison in Newton,
Texas. They released nearly 300 other inmates and set fire to one of the

Ross' answer to the chorus of outrage was to hire William Sessions, who
served as FBI director under Presidents Reagan and Bush, as a "special
adviser ... He goes with us on sales calls to potential clients".

We should not be surprised that Texas is currently operating private
prisons that reek of the chain gangs and forced convict labour of a century

But a hard look at Texas tells us much about what may be in store if Bush
is elected President and his fellow Texas lawmakers, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay,
and Bill Archer, continue their gangster-like control of the House.

As for the Senate, it is under the leadership of a Bush soul mate, Trent
Lott of Mississippi, a devotee of the White Citizens Council whose state
has its own history of convict labor and lynch law.

"There is no question that Texas has given the private prison industry its
biggest boost", said Gainsborough. "They built all these prisons to house
their huge prison population and now they are importing inmates from all
across the country."

That is the brutal truth behind George W Bush's friendly smile.
so your against anything to hurt people, then how can you back george "put them in the chair gov." bush?

you know the guy who has put more people in the chair then ANYONE?

the guy who ties to private prisons, so prison membership is also on the rise everywhere the guy goes.

do a net search for " george bush private prisons"

see what you get, right.

he has put people to death that were thought to be not guilty.

read up on it.

research, use the force.

9.by Doug in Indiana
“It’s clearly a budget. It’s got a lot of numbers in it.”

— George Wizard Bush
May 5, 2000
(The garbage man is a lot smarter than the Unpresident)

“What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I think vulcanize society.

“So I don’t know how that fits into what everybody else is saying, their relative positions, but that’s my position.”

— George “What he say?” Bush
January 21, 2000
Quoted by Molly Ivins
in the San Francisco Chronicle

“One of the interesting initiatives we’ve taken in Washington, D.C., is we’ve got these vampire-busting devices. A vampire is a — a cell deal you can plug in the wall to charge your cell phone.”

— George “Count Wackula” Bush
August 14, 2001
Denver, Colorado

“Anyway, after we go out and work our hearts out, after you go out and help us turn out the vote, after we’ve convinced the good Americans to vote, and while they’re at it, pull that old George W. lever, if I’m the one, when I put my hand on the Bible, when I put my hand on the Bible, that day when they swear us in, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not — to uphold the laws of the land.”

— George “What a liar” Bush
October 27, 2000
Toledo, Ohio

“The fundamental question is, ‘Will I be a successful president when it comes to foreign policy?’ I will be, but until I’m the president, it’s going to be hard for me to verify that I think I’ll be more effective.”

— George “What a dork” Bush
June 28, 2000
Wayne, Michigan
Quoted by Katharine Q. Seelye
in the New York Times

“Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment.”

— Unpresident George W. Bush
January 14, 2001
Interview with the New York Times

“But the true threats to stability and peace are these nations that are not very transparent, that hide behind the — that don’t let people in to take a look and see what they’re up to. They’re very kind of authoritarian regimes. The true threat is whether or not one of these people decide, peak of anger, try to hold us hostage, ourselves; the Israelis, for example, to whom we’ll defend, offer our defenses; the South Koreans.”

— Unpresident George W. Bush
Muddle-headed Hypocrite-In-Chief
March 13, 2001
Media roundtable
Washington, D.C.

“I assured the prime minister, my administration will work hard to lay the foundation of peace in the Middle — to work with our nations in the Middle East, give peace a chance. Secondly, I told him that our nation will not try to force peace, that we’ll facilitate peace and that we will work with those responsible for a peace.”

— Unpresident George W. Bush
March 20, 2001
Washington, D.C.
during a photo op with war criminal Ariel Sharon,
Prime Minister of one of our nations in the Middle East

“But I also made it clear to [Russian President Vladimir Putin] that it’s important to think beyond the old days of when we had the concept that if we blew each other up, the world would be safe.”

— Unpresident George W. Bush
America’s Pride
May 1, 2001
Washington, D.C.

“When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was.

“Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they’re there.”

— George W. Bush
January 21, 2000
Iowa Western Community College
(But them wouldn’t play the game,
so the unelected Bush regime finally
had to create some terrorists on 9-11)

“This is still a dangerous world. It’s a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses.”

— George Wingnut Bush
January 14, 2000
At a South Carolina oyster roast
as quoted in the Financial Times

“If a person doesn’t have the capacity that we all want that person to have, I suspect hope is in the far distant future, if at all.”

— Unpresident George W. Bush
May 22, 2001
Washington, D.C.
Personally demonstrating why
hope for America
is in the far distant future, if at all

“Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to — I can’t remember what it was. Oh, the inaugural speech, started thinking through that.”

— George “We’re in good hands” Bush
January 22, 2001 issue of
U.S. News & World Report
Pre-inaugural interview

“I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right.”

— Unpresident George W. Bush
July 22, 2001

“I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can’t answer your question.”

— George “Did I say that?” Bush
October 4, 2000
Reynoldsburg, Ohio
In response to a question about
whether he wished he could take back
any of his answers in the first debate

“This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It’s what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve.”

— George “Raspberry Jam” Bush
Speaking during “Perseverance Month”
January 28, 2000
Nashua, New Hampshire
Fairgrounds Elementary School
Quoted in the Los Angeles Times

“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”

— Dr. George W. Bush
January 11, 2000
Florence, South Carolina
Yes, they is learning what an Idiot the Unpresident are

“You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.”

— Unpresident George “Duh” Bush
February 21, 2001
Townsend, Tennessee

“As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards.”

— George “The Graduate” Bush
August 30, 2000
CNN online chat

“I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that’s responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be — a literate country and a hopefuller country.”

— Unpresident George Literati Bush
January 11, 2001
Washington, D.C.

“We want them [teachers] to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there’s not this kind of federal — federal cufflink.”

— George W. Bush
March 30, 2000
Fritsche Middle School
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

“I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It’s pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C. is close to California.”

— George W. Bush, Ph.D.
April 8, 2000
Los Angeles Times

“Actually, I — this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I’m talking about — when I’m talking about myself, and when he’s talking about myself, all of us are talking about me.”

— George “West Hollywood” Bush
May 31, 2000
Hardball, MSNBC

“I’ve coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically.”

— Unprecedent George W. Bush
March 29, 2001
Washington, D.C.
Radio-Television Correspondents Association dinner

“People make suggestions on what to say all the time. I’ll give you an example: I don’t read what’s handed to me. People say, ‘Here, here’s your speech, or here’s an idea for a speech.’

“They’re changed. Trust me.”

— George W. Bush
Ad-libber extraordinaire
March 15, 2000
Interview with the New York Times

“I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth.”

— George D.W.I. Bush
February 1, 2000
Nashua, New Hampshire
Quoted by Gail Collins
in the New York Times

“I don’t remember debates. I don’t think we spent a lot of time debating it. Maybe we did, but I don’t remember.”

— George Shotglass Bush
July 27, 1999
Washington Post
Regarding the genocidal Vietnam War
when he was a hard-partying undergraduate at Yale

“I understand small business growth. I was one.”

— George W. Bush
Recovering small-business-growth
February 19, 2000
New York Daily News

“I’ve changed my style somewhat, as you know. I’m less, I pontificate less, although it may be hard to tell it from this show. And I’m more interacting with people.”

— George W. Bush
February 13, 2000
Meet The Press

Interview on “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer”
April 27, 2000:

Governor Bush: “I talked to my little brother, Jeb, I haven’t told this to many people. But he’s the governor of, I shouldn’t call him my little brother — my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.”

Jim Lehrer: “Florida.”

Governor Bush: “Florida. The state of the Florida.”

“The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I’ve looked at. I do not believe we’ve put a guilty... I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas.”

— George W. Bush
June 16, 2000
All Things Considered?, NPR

“I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute them.”

— George W. Bush
December 18, 2000
Washington, D.C.

“He has certainly earned a reputation as a fantastic mayor, because the results speak for themselves. I mean, New York’s a safer place for him to be.”

— George W. Bush
May 18, 2000
“The Edge With Paula Zahn”
Speaking of fascist NYC Mayor Rudolf Giuliani
“We’re concerned about AIDS inside our White House — make no mistake about it.”
— Unpresident George “Rubber Gloves” Bush
February 7, 2001
Washington, D.C.
At the 1988 Republican Convention that nominated Gee Dubbya’s “Poppy” for President, Hartford Courant associate editor David Fink struck up a conversation with the prodigal son:

Fink: “When you’re not talking politics, what do you and [your father] talk about?”

George W.: “Pussy.”

10.by Doug in Indiana
jennifer you wrote

"I have a belief agianst abortion"

and thats interesting, i've noticed ALOT of people say they vote morals first, bible,god fearing,etc.

most are repubs, funny thing is, how can you vote for killing someone(death penelty) but yet your aganist abortion?

let me tell you what i told my girlfriend, the bible is not a how to run a country handbook.

i dont need someones morals forced upon me, i dont need anyone's, oh your a sinner so i'm better.

if we believe we believe, if we dont, to bad for us.

you say bomb the terrorist, but i bet your all for someone blowing up an abortion clinic huh?

you see, before abortion was legal, girls would use coat hangers, and risk death to themself as well as the kid, as sure as i am about how you would like to go back to those days, i would rather not.

just like the war on drugs(that gets more funding with each republican in office)

can you name one person(regular guy) that is flying his happy but to the middle east and picking up tons of heroin and bringing it back here?

let me ask you miss faa, you do realize that drugs are still pouring over the boarder right? along with illegal aliens.

if we cant stop tons of coke from comming into the country, how can we stop a pound of anthrax from getting in?

have you even begun to research how safe you are?

did you know that right now, unprotected are 284 chemical plants here in the u.s. that each one alone could kill 1 million people in there area?

pbs did a report about it, they even took the cameras right up to the chemical tanks, NO GRAUDS CAME TO SEE WHAT THEY WERE DOING, THEY COULD HAVE THROWN A STICK OF DYNOMITE AND KILLED 300,000 PEOPLE.


i'm sure the terrorist are going to drive threw chicago with all that anthrax and drop it in your drinking water in where the hell am i iowa.

common sense people.

use it, love it.

every expert in the world will tell you the same thing, WE ARE NO MORE SAFE NOW THEN BEFORE.

gewt off your but and research it, stop being a fox news sheep, find a checmical company near you, drive by, notice the lackluster security, the big chemical tanks two feet from the fence.

wake up.

10.by Doug in Indiana
Health Care Shrub had fourteen (14!) doctors give him a thorough physical exam to ensure that he was healthy. His pro-HMO scheme would NOT give us peons anywhere near that kind of consideration.

Federal Spending "It's a staple of presidential politics, doing a grip-and-grin at a local facility and praising the hometown effort. The drop-by virtually guarantees good local press for a minimum of effort, especially if the commander-in-chief can boast that federal tax dollars are helping the good people of fill-in-the-blank town. That's what President Bush did last month when he visited a job-training center in Portland, Ore. He praised the program's work during the half-hour visit, looking over the shoulders of computer operators working on job listings. There was little mention of this nationally, for this was the day the president told a town-hall meeting that "not over my dead body" would there be a tax increase. But the visit was a big deal locally, generating several favorable stories in the Oregonian. Well, guess what? The Portland center gets slammed in Bush's new budget. That hurts. Ronald Reagan had this problem once, using a senior citizens' center in Buffalo as a campaign backdrop, then proposing to eliminate the program that funds such buildings. The press had a field day." Another hallmark of the Grand Hypocrisy Party style politics. Get the photo-op and make the common man think he's included in their schemes. Then, when nobody's looking- yank the rug right out from under those programs that got them the good press they wanted. Will the Oregonian now tell the people about Shrub & Co.'s blatant hypocrisy???

Source: Washington Post

The Shrub White House just gave themselves incredible and disgusting raises while telling Congress and the American people to cut back on spending.

Cheney pressured Congress to force the Navy to foot the bill for his residence electrical use while everyone else pays through the nose (especially Californians). He CLAIMS (incorrectly at best, deceptively at worst) that this was an initiative started by the former administration. The situation is compounded by his ties to the energy industry and the record profits they are raking in with the aid of Shrub/Cheney.

Drug Abuse Reflublicans wouldn't leave Clinton alone about his marijuana use ("I didn't inhale"). Yet, the fact that Shrub was convicted for cocaine possession means nothing.

Shrub wants to get tough by denying student loans for students who are forced to admit if they've ever used drugs. Yet, he refuses to admit his past cocaine possession conviction. This omission should disqaulify him from receiving his inflated salary while occupying the White House? Sign the petition!

Investigations "As I was saying, journalists seem to heed opinion polls more than politicians. Take the Washington Post's February 9th editorial rejecting Sen. Fritz Hollings' (D-S.C.) call for an Enron independent counsel. "The coziness between the administration and Enron means that the scandal could conceivably implicate political figures in ways that demand an independent prosecutor," the Post concedes. 'But that hasn't happened yet; nobody has credibly alleged a crime by a member of the administration. And as long as the focus of the inquiry remains on crimes by the corporation and its accountants, the Justice Department can handle the matter.' Compare the same newspaper's January 5, 1994 argument that Whitewater 'represents precisely the kind of case in which an independent counsel ought to be appointed. We say that even though-and and this should be stressed-there has been no credible charge in this case that either the president or Mrs. Clinton did anything wrong. Nevertheless, it is in the public interest--and in the president's as well--to put the inquiry in independent hands....Nor is it protection enough to say that the investigation is in the hands of career [Justice Department] attorneys. To whom do they report?'" So much for the "liberal bias" in the media that the hypocritical flying monkey right asserts to ad nauseum. The conservative mainstream media shows its hypocritical and complicitous agenda as a mouthpiece for the fascist right on a daily basis. Thank you, Mr. Lyons, for so clearly illustrating this.

Source: Gene Lyons

Dan "melonhead" Burton is at it again. While he refuses to investigate real allegations of misconduct against Shrub, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Spencer Abraham, he is still hooked on Clinton-bashing. He's still wasting taxpayer dollars on a witch hunt of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Source: Washington Post

Free Speech "A man who yelled an expletive at former President Bush and disrupted a speech he was giving at the Texas Capitol should be tried for heckling, a state court ruled. Thomas Markovich was a university student in 1998 when he stood up in the House gallery and yelled at Bush, who was speaking as part of the Texas Book Festival. Others joined in the shouting or clapped in support of the former president, making so much noise that Bush stopped talking."

Source: ABC News

Don't you dare curse at a Bush- you'll be arrested and made to stand trial for it. As we all know, there is no guarantee of free speech under the Constitution (what Constitution???) under the glorious Fascist regime led by the dictatorial Bush Family Evil Empire (BFEE). That does not, however, prevent a Bush from lobbing curses at anyone s/he pleases. Remember back on Sept. 4, 2000 (two years after Markovich was arrested) when Shrub called Adam Clymer a "major league asshole" in front of a campaign audience? From Salon.com, " Bush spotted New York Times reporter Adam Clymer, who has been with the paper since 1977, serving as national political correspondent during the 1980 presidential race, as polling editor from 1983 to 1990 and as political editor during the successful presidential campaign of Bush's father in 1988. 'There's Adam Clymer -- major league asshole -- from the New York Times,' Bush said. 'Yeah, big time,' returned Cheney." Couldn't you just image Shrub and Cheney being hauled off to jail for their public expletive??? Oh yeah, the Bush crime family and their cronies are above the law! With hypocrisy such as that, who needs law enforcement?


The Rabid Right's hypocrisy glows ever brighter these days. For eight years, they did little else but to criticize and denounce President Bill Clinton, and they even went so far as to attempt a bloodless coup by way of impeachment. Now, this same Rabid Right won't tolerate even the slightest hint of dissent against its leader- George "W stands for war!" Bush. They throw around words like "traitor" and "treason" to describe those who dare speak out against Shrub and his "new war." Should we have locked all of them up back in 1993 for their "treasonous" and "traitorous" acts against President Bill Clinton???

Source: ConWebWatch

Legislation "Gov. Jeb Bush on December 17, 2001 signed into law an agreement to delay a cut in the state's intangibles tax on stocks and bonds for 18 months. The delay was a cornerstone of the deal between Senate President John McKay and House Speaker Tom Feeney to cut more than $1-billion in the state budget to make up for lost revenue. McKay wanted to repeal the cut, while Feeney wanted to keep it. Keeping the tax on the books kept -million in revenue, thereby avoiding deeper cuts in state services." Shrub, in a speech at a so-called "Town Hall Meeting" (it was for Rightists only, though), said that delaying or repealing his "welfare to the wealthy" tax scheme would amount to a "tax raise." So, by that logic, can we conclude that Jebby has raised taxes in Florida with the stroke of his pen last December? You can bet that the Rightists will be spinning hard to parrot Shrub's words when it comes to talking about anything Tom Daschle and the US Congress do to stop the corporate welfare hemorrhage. BUT, they'll continue to tell the people of Florida that Jebby is a man who cut their taxes and should be re-elected! Two-faced hypocrisy at its worst....

Source: St. Petersburg Times

Corporate welfare for the airlines seems to be a good thing to keep the economy afloat. Yet, Reflublicans don't seem to feel as "compassionate" about individual American workers who have been laid off because of the same tragedies that have caused woes for the airline industry. Dick Armey states, "The model of thought there, and quite frankly, the model of thought that says we need to go out and extend unemployment benefits and health insurance benefits and so forth is not I think one that is commensurate with the American spirit here."

Source: New York Times

"U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts, R- Norman, Ok -- who supports the aviation security bill scheduled for a vote this week -- violated security measures outside Will Rogers World Airport on Sept. 28, aides confirmed." It seems that Reflublican lawmakers think they are above the laws they want enacted. Is it their opinion that only we powerless peons be held accountable to the law? Kenneth Star, Dan "melonhead" Burton and the rest of the Clinton-obsessed witch hunters will be sorry to hear that...

Source: NewsOK.com

Executive Privilege "With the White House preparing for a showdown over its refusal to tell Congress about contacts between Enron and the administration's energy task force, House Republican leaders backed the White House today. After a morning meeting with President Bush, the Republican House speaker, Dennis Hastert, and the majority leader, Dick Armey, came down staunchly in the White House camp. Echoing the often-repeated White House position, Mr. Hastert said, 'I think it's proprietary information.' At the White House today, Ari Fleischer, the press secretary, reiterated that the Bush administration believes that investigators are overstepping their authority and that the accounting office is seeking to encroach on records that are covered by executive privilege and whose disclosure would hurt the administration's ability to obtain outside advice" Isn't it amazing that House Republicans, who once demanded Hillary's records on Health Care Reform meetings, are now cospicuously silent or are in favor of Cheney's cover-up operation. Political partisanship is the only game in town for the Grand Hypocrisy Party in the last several years. This time, however, there may be criminal iabilities involved- unlike with Hillary's records. Cheney is willing to waste millions in taxpayer money to hide the fact that he let Enron write the bogus energy policy, and the people should make him reimburse the government for legal fees when it is decided that he, Shrub and the House Republicans are wrong....

Source: New York Times

States' Rights "In an attempt by the Bush administration to undercut Oregon's unique assisted-suicide law, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave federal drug agents the go-ahead Tuesday to take action against doctors who help terminally ill patients die." Ashcroft won't go after those who terrorize abortion clinics (which contradicts his Senate confirmation testimony), but he has no problem using the DEA to invade the lives of law-abiding citizens. What happened to the conservative mantras of "keeping government out of people's personal lives" and "more sovereignty to the states to control their own affairs?" It seems that Reflublican hypocrisy knows no bounds under Shrub and Co....

Source: Nando Times

The [federal government has] uprooted a marijuana garden run by patients, who under the provisions of California Proposition 215, passed by voters in 1996, have the legal right to smoke pot if they have a doctor's recommendation. Shrub, Ashcroft and company have again undermined states' rights with their actions.

Source: Cannabis News
Info provided by "sl"

Infidelity "President George [HW] Bush had a 'special' relationship with a staffer named Jennifer Fitzgerald. In fact, Bush had been 'very close' to this Jennifer beginning in Peking back in the days when Bush was our delegate to Red China. So close, in fact, that Barbara Bush had come home to D.C. in a state of 'depression.' Things came to a head one summer up in Kennebunkport when CNN's Mary Tillotson asked President Bush if he was having an 'adulterous' affair? Bush went ballistic and decried the question even being asked. He attacked the reporter for 'what you are doing.' But he never answered the question. Instead he later sent out a spokesman to say, 'The answer to the 'A' question is a big NO.' The spokesman? His oldest son, George W. Bush." So much for that "honor and integrity" crap Shrub spewed to ad nauseum during and since the 2000 campaign!

Source: NewsMax.com


The Republican Wife-Cheating
Hall of Fame

The Blame Game Donald Rumsfeld, in a Defense Dept. briefing, said, "Well, here is a man who has killed thousands of people. So, using him as the oracle of all truth would clearly be a mistake. He has lied repeatedly- over and over again. He has highjacked a religion. He has hidden and cowered in caves and tunnels while sending people off to die on a uh, uh, ... I almost said a fool's errand. But, I don't know that I should say that." If you didn't know any better, you might think Rummy's talking about Shrub! Thousands of innocent people have been killed in the violence in Afghanistan. Shrub has lied to the American people repeatedly "over and over again." He has been proclaimed the new leader of the religious right. AND, he has hidden himself far, far away from his war (hiding in the White House or his ranch in Texas) while sending countless thousands of military troops to fight his battles. At least now we are clear on what constitutes an "evildoer."

Source: C-SPAN
(Real Audio file starting at Time: 25:15.0)


Getting bin Laden

When Clinton went gunning for bin Laden in 1998 and the cruise missiles missed him by ten minutes, the conservative hate-radio (and TV) pundits had a field day. All they could screech about was how Clinton bombed an aspirin factory and the attacks were designed to take the focus off of the Lewinski matter. NOW, Shrub has been bombing the heck out of Afghanistan for three months, and he has brought in special forces and the marines. They keep claiming that they have OBL cornered, but somehow he continues to elude them. AND, in the process, over 3,500 civilian Afghans have been killed by all of this. Do the pundits scream? No, they are too busy deluging the American people with the propaganda of what a great president Shrub is and that Bill Clinton is evil incarnate. So, can we conclude that Reflublicans think that aspirin factories are more important than 3,500 lives? Do they feel that two cruise missiles should have been more effective than an all-out assault by the best our military has to offer?

Source: CNN.com

Military Action Trent Lott on December 16, 1998: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question. I am opposed to endangering the lives of brave American men and women in the military for action in Iraq that will not effect real change in that nation." Source: PBS NewsHour

Trent Lott on February 28, 2002: "How dare Sen. Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field." Source: Reuters.com

It appears that duplicity is the current theme for the Grand Hypocrisy Party these days. We had "troops in the field" when good ol' boy Trent spewed his nastiness in 1998. This is grandstanding hypocrisy of the worst kind, and the American people, especially those who are serving in the military, should call these fascists on it!

Appointments & Nominations What Does Orrin Hatch Have to Say About Recess Appointments?


"If [Clinton makes] a recess appointment, then I have to say, it's a finger in the eye of the Senate," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told FOX on Sunday. "I think you'd find there would be an awful lot of repercussions from that."

CNN article

March 30, 2002:

Bush Makes Recess Appointments, Including A Critic of Affirmative Action in Charge of Civil Rights.

New York Times article

That's why they call it the Grand HYPOCRISY Party (GHP).

Source: Buzzflash.com

"The rigor of the federal judicial appointments process was diminished last month when Republicans persuaded the Senate Judiciary Committee to refrain from questioning nominees about illegal drug activities and political campaign contributions, and to curtail the scope of questions about criminal records. Critics of the questions about drug use and criminal convictions alleged that these questions would slow down the confirmation process at a time when a record thirteen percent of federal judgeships are vacant." First, there wouldn't be "a record thirteen percent" vacancy if the Reflublicans hadn't obstructed and drug their feet on eight years' worth of Clinton nominations- they have only themselvs to blame for that one. During those eight years, all we heard from Reflublicans was ultra-moralist rhetoric about alleged drug abuse, campaign contributions and criminal activity being reason enough to villify and demonize Clinton. Now that Reflublican judges are being nominated, they shouldn't be questioned about their past activities at all! Go figure....

Source: Jurist
support the troops....vote bush out.

11.by Doug in Indiana


These web pages are devoted to the probably hopeless effort to defeat G.W. Bush in 2004. After W's election in 2000, I told my wife and anyone else who would listen that he would wreak such havoc by his blinkered, knee-jerk conservatism and frat-minded ignorance that the Republican Party would not occupy the White House again for the next 50 years--minimum. Yet, thanks to the "war on terrorism," we find him enjoying stratospheric popularity. At least, according to the polls.

I have collected magazine and newspaper articles, editorials, op-ed pieces which test and question that popularity. The subjects are the various feasances (mal-, mis- and non-) of Bush and his team, the Bushwhacking of our environment, economy, foreign relations, Social Security, Medicare and the other items in the social contract between the government and us. As new articles appear we will refresh the content.
very interesting take here.............
it just keeps looking worse for bush..lol

12.by Doug in Indiana
speaking of iraq, i wonder what the family of the troops think about bush.......lets be sneaky and take a look shall we?


Hello All,

I'm new to the board- I served in Vietnam, '69-'70, Americal Division, platoon sergeant in the infantry. Below is an editorial that appeared on the Army Times website last week for awhile, then was abruptly removed. It is focused on the issue of pay for our troops, and the shabby treatment they are getting under the Republicans and the Bush administration.


Nothing but lip service
Issue Date: June 30, 2003

In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap - and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.

For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary - including a modest proposal to double the ,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from to ) and family-separation allowance (from to ) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.

Then there's military tax relief - or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can't seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.

Incredibly, one of those tax provisions - easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home - has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.

The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush's proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.

The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.

All of which brings us to the latest indignity - Bush's .2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year's budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.

But Bush's tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.

The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush's proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional million next year.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush's construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of ,300, they would receive ,500.

The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.

Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale - especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging "unequivocal support" to service members and their families, puts it this way: "American military men and women don't deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions."

Translation: Money talks - and we all know what walks

13.by Doug in Indiana
you might notice that the names down at the bottom are some of the names on top of the bush admin.

what you also might notice is that the "pnac plan" is also bush's plan..........strange.

strange also is that without 9-11 pnac would not have been able to put america on the road to it's pax americana vision.

with ashcroft ramming thru the patriot act(which came close on the heels of the anthrax attacks on congressmen, but the anthrax was taken from a us base)

bush is just a puppet, as is most washington figures. puppets for money, not caring or thinking of the harm to later americans or our familys.

if the people cant change this type of thinking in our government then we will be taking it to the streets.

the people are tired of it, you can feel it on the dean blog.

we will be taking our country back.

you know what i say? forget the terrorist and bomb the cig factory's, they kill more americans every year then terrorist could ever kill.

lets bomb south america, they have been sending wmd up here since the disco days.

yes it's white, and it kills just like anthrax.

another reason i dont trust anyone in our government, backwards ass thinking.

anybody see the pot tv ad that had that girl pregnant? oh bad judgement huh? my tax dollars went for that? nobody believe's that crap.

anyway bush and co are not good for america, if he has messed up this bad and he is worried about getting reelected, i cant imagine what he will do in his last term.

please anybody try and pick up and read no logo, it's a great book.

14.by Doug in Indiana

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

15.by Doug in Indiana

now about the u.s. being safe...................

MARGARET WARNER: A new study released today by the Council on Foreign Relations paints an alarming picture American communities' ability to respond to another major terrorist attack. The study concludes that "The United States has not reached a sufficient level of emergency preparedness and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents or coordinated high-impact conventional means."

The report says funding for emergency responders, i.e., police, fire, medical and public health agencies, may need to be tripled over the next five years. Here to discuss the findings are two members of the panel: Its chairman, Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, who is currently a member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He co-chaired a previous commission warning of catastrophic attacks on American soil nine months before Sept. 11; and the senior adviser to the task force, Richard Clarke, former National Security Council chief for terrorism during the Clinton administration and early in the Bush administration. He was in that job on 9/11.

Welcome to you both.

This is a very alarming response, Senator Rudman, that the country is still unprepared. You're talking now about responding to an attack if it comes.

What are cities lacking?

MARGARET WARNER: What led you to that conclusion?

FORMER SEN. WARREN RUDMAN: We took a number of months talking to every emergency group in America: Police chiefs, firemen, fire chiefs associations, hospitals, emergency medical technicians and so forth. And we simply asked the question: if a chemical or a biological attack were to occur, or a nuclear or radiological attack, are you prepared to deal with it? The answer was universally no.

taken from here...................

WASHINGTON — Attorney General John Ashcroft (search) wants prosecutors to closely monitor which judges impose more lenient sentences than federal guidelines recommend, a step some critics say could limit judicial independence.

16.by Doug in Indiana
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President

By Neil Mackay

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'

Web report: Iraq

15 September 2002

16.by Doug in Indiana
kerry is a good guy, but dean is are only way. you see kerry is an inside player, who along with bush went to the secert meetings, you said, how could someone have so different views. maybe they are not so different after all.

the persident is one guy like i said, the problems are bigger then the president. congress has to go to, new people real ideals.

time for the working people to get some rewards.

folks watch that 9-11 movie i posted.

then check out infowars.com every couple of days.

see how the plan is comming together.

see how soon you will have cameras watching your every move and chips inside you to track you.

1984 is here folks.............wake up.


the truth is staring you in the face, dont be afraid to help change it.

17.by Doug in Indiana


but it's more then that brother, it's about common sense. most people have a couple second attention span, so stuff easily slips by.

the government and elite are playing us for fools.

does anyone really believe the government version of 9-11?

does anyone believe that the president would sit around a classroom for 30 mins after he knew we was under attack?

does anyone believe that the faa and norad would disobey sop of 30 years?

watch this movie on 9-11 the road to tranny, it's on this site.....


and let me leave you with some things to think about.
lets start with 1993.

1.February 26, 1993: An attempt to blow up the WTC fails. 6 people are killed in the misfired blast. The New York Times later reports a curious story about an undercover agent who ends up being the key government witness in the trial against the bomber. This agent, Emad Salem, says that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, this plan was called off by an FBI supervisor, and the bombing was not stopped. [New York Times, 10/28/93] Ramzi Yousef, (close ties to bin Laden/ISI) is found guilty of masterminding the plot, [Congressional Hearings, 2/24/98] yet the actual "perpetrators" appear to be innocent "scapegoats". The FBI's own senior explosives expert, testifies that the FBI concocted misleading scientific reports and pressured two of their scientists to perjure their testimony. The FBI also intimidated defense attorneys, and breached court orders in an attempt to prejudice the jury.

2.A calendar which was printed in Egypt for the month of September shows a crashing passenger plane with Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop. The calendar was printed in May, a full three months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America, and has caused an uproar in the Dutch town of Almere, Netherlands. "I am supported by Allah, to die for Allah" is quoted on the September calendar
... Less than an hour before the WTC attacks Donald Rumsfeld told a congressional delegation that a "shocking" event would occur soon.

3.19 December 2002 -- In a dramatic interview with ABCNEWS, FBI special agents and partners Robert Wright and John Vincent say they were called off criminal investigations of suspected terrorists tied to the deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. U.S. officials say al Qaeda was responsible for the embassy attacks and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. "The supervisor who was there from headquarters was right straight across from me and started yelling at me: 'You will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects,'" Wright said. According to Flessner and an affidavit filed by Wright, an FBI agent named Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, who is Muslim, refused to secretly record one of al-Kadi's suspected associates, who was also Muslim. Wright says Abdel-Hafiz told him, Vincent and other agents that "a Muslim doesn't record another Muslim." Far from being reprimanded, Abdel-Hafiz was promoted to one of the FBI's most important anti-terrorism posts, the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia, to handle investigations for the FBI in that Muslim country.


By: Hal Turner

Original Link http://www.halturnershow.com/FEMA.htm

New York, NY (October 28, 2001) -- In the weeks since September 11, the "terrorist attacks" upon New York City
and Washington have begun to smell worse than the rotting corpses still buried in the rubble. The stench of government
involvement, government foreknowledge and cover-up is filling the air.

As various people go back to the audio and video of the days immediately after September 11, we are finding more and more
evidence that this whole incident is not what it seems.

Nowhere is this more evident than in remarks made by Tom Kennedy, a member of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) "National Urban Search and Rescue Team" during an interview on national TV with CBS News anchor
Dan Rather.

During the interview, Mr. Kennedy let slip a frightening truth. FEMA sent the Urban Search and Rescue Team to New
York City the night before the attacks occurred! Mr. Kennedy tells Dan Rather, "We're currently one of the first teams
that was deployed to support the City of New York in this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night
[Editors note: September 10] and went right into action on Tuesday morning" [Editors note: September 11]
Click Here to Listen to the actual interview segment in which these words are uttered.

The attacks and collapse of the World Trade center happened on Tuesday, September 11. Surely it did not take FEMA almost
an entire additional week (the following Monday) to send the Urban Search and Rescue Unit to help New York? And Mr.
Kennedy says his team was "one of the first" deployed to assist New York City. Arriving a week after the fact ,
Mr. Kennedy certainly couldn't claim to have "been one of the first deployed. . . . ."

This seems to offer proof, directly from the mouth of a US Government Official, that the Government knew an attack
was going to happen. They allowed it to happen.

Under the Constitution of The United States, "Treason" is defined very specifically as "an overt act of war against The United States, witnessed by two or more people." The attacks of September 11 were certainly witnessed by two or more people. We even have
them on videotape (Click Here for video of the first Plane Hit) (Click Here for video of the SECOND plane hit)

They have been called "an act of war" by none less than The President of The United States. To that end, it appears that
various officials of our own Government have committed Constitutionally-defined Treason. On the basis of Mr. Kennedy's remarks
alone, there is probable cause to have a vast number of Government Officials taken into custody, charged, tried and,
if convicted, executed.

An Executive Director at the CIA named A. "Buzzy" Krongard formerly worked for Bankers Trust in the banks top "Private Client
Services Group" catering to the richest of the rich. Bankers Trust was purchased by Deutsch Bank. In 1999, Mr. Krongard
left Deutsch Bank for his present high-level job in the CIA.

In the days immediately BEFORE September 11, a number of very unusual stock trades were made in the two airlines whose
planes were used in the attacks: American and United Airlines; and in two Securities Firms who had major offices in the
World Trade Center: Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Merril Lynch. The trades involved the purchase of enormous quantities of
"Put" options, which allow the option buyer to earn profits in the event the value of a stock goes down. Many of these unusual
trades were handled through. . . . . . .Deutsch Bank. . . . .the place where Buzzy Krongard worked prior to becoming
Executive Director of CIA. Coincidence? I don't think so. In fact, the appearance of "advance knowledge" is so strong, that to date
.5 Million of the Million in profits earned on those unusual trades, remains unclaimed by anyone. Perhaps taking the profits
now, when people are watching, isn't such a good idea. Too many question would have to be answered. For extensive information
about this aspect of the story, Click Here.

Shortly after September 11, The Congress of the United States was able to draft and introduce an "Anti-Terrorism," Bill
which was 151 pages long. How could such a huge Bill be formulated in such a short time, covering so vast an amount of legal matters. . . . . .unless of course the Bill was drafted long in advance of the attacks, and merely introduced afterwards?
This would hint at members of Congress itself having advance knowledge of the attacks!

This "Anti-Terrorism" Bill has given police sweeping new powers, previously unthinkable in the US, when measured against the
Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects citizens from "unreasonable search and seizure." This Bill, now
signed into law, does to the US Constitution, what those airplanes did to the World Trade Center. If you think this an exagerration,
Click Here to read about "Homeland Security's" Internal Security Checkpoints in the US where every one of us will have to produce
several ID cards proving who we are, in order to travel. People witout "proper ID" or those "deemed to be suspicious" will be
detained. Any detainee attempting to leave will be shot!

We are told that our Government has irrefutable proof that the attacks were masterminded by Osama Bin Laden. But
the "proof" has never been released to the public or to anyone other than British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Military Dictator
of Pakistan. In the words of the old Wendy's Hamburger commercials "Where's the beef?"

Word of this "proof" seeped into British tabloids as being a satellite telephone call on September 9 from Bin Laden to his mother,
during which he allegedly told her "you will hear big news in two days, and then you will not hear from me for a long time."
If this is true, and the press already has the info, why not let everyone hear the tape? Everyone on the planet already knows that the National Security Agency has the ability to listen-in on cell phone, telephone, FAX, e-mail and satellite communications around the
globe. We all know about "Echelon." This is no secret. Why hide it? Unless it doesn't exist.

So now we're bombing Afghanistan, to punish the Taliban for not turning over Bin Laden to us. But is that the reason, or does it have
more to do with the vast Caspian Oil Reserves? In order to get those oil reserves, pipelines must traverse. . . .Afghanistan.
The Taliban allegedly backed away from such a deal. Perhaps THAT is why they must now be toppled.
(in case you didn't know, unocal had a so-so deal with the taliban to build an oil pipeline thru afganistan, they brought the taliban out in 97-98 to texas, and they even spent 10 million to look into building a pipeline there, funny how after afganistan falls, the new leader is an ex unocal employee and there is talks of a pipeline again)

now lets get to the questions.

1. why is there no video of all 19 terrorists in the airport?

only two were caught on tape and even then they were caught on tape at the portland airport(which they flew from portland to boston)

2. who bought all those stocks before 9-11 happened?

3. why did we not have fighters in the air ? some of you might remember that when a plane goes off course, the air force is up there quick(anybody that golfers plane before 9-11 that was off course and we sent up jets?)

Sept. 11, 2001


A summary, according to mainstream media/military reports.
For more in-depth analysis, see sources below.

1) At 8:13am, Flight 11 from Boston stops responding (by radio) with Air Traffic Control.

2) By 8:20am, transponder contact is lost and the plane begins to go, (or is already) dramatically off-course.

3) Each of these instances, taken separately, constitutes an emergency according to FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5.

4) According to Bob Arnott of MSNBC, "Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... It's considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour." "Routine" response to such emergencies is to order "fighter-intercepts" into the air, to regain contact with the pilot, (NORAD spokesman, Boston Globe, 9/15/2000). Between Sept. 2000 and June 2001, fighters were scrambled 67 times.

5) By 8:24, the hijacking of Flight 11 is confirmed, as a controller hears someone say, "''We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane."

6) The Nashua (ATC) controllers say they "didn't know when the military was contacted, but that it was routine to do so immediately when a hijacking is under way."

7) Yet NORAD claims that they were not informed for another 14 minutes!! -at 8:38.

8) When NORAD finally responds, they notify OTIS AFB, (about two hundred miles east of Flight 11's position). This decision is made just after they are informed, (at 8:43) that a second plane in the same area has been hijacked, (Flight 175) heading west, (away from Otis).

9) Top military spokesmen say cutbacks caused a reduction in the number of bases "on alert," (from 100 to 7 since 1990) meaning that intercepts had to come from a greater distance, (General Richard Myers, Senate confirmation hearing).

10) This story is repeated without question by the mainstream media.

11) Seven bases on the coastal borders for the entire United States! Yet there is a dozen or more Air Force bases in the general vicinity that have "battle-ready" fighter squadrons, (Syracuse, Philadelphia, Atlantic City, amongst others). Training missions are routine. Are they saying there was not a single plane on the tarmac, fuelled up, or already in the air, from ANY of those bases? Nor is this what occurred during the Payne Stewart crises, where four different bases were called in as the plane flew across the continent. (25 October 1999).

12) Military spokesmen describe the planes from Otis as flying "like a scalded ape." "Over 500 mph." Yet according to the American Federation of Scientists, the top speed of the F-15's (from Otis) is 1800+ mph. Though this top speed is rarely achieved with the full weight of fuel and weapons, the Otis planes actually fly at less than half their achievable speed.

13) The fighter-planes arrive in New York City at approximately 9:20 -after the two hijacked planes had crashed into the World Trade Centers- an HOUR and THIRTEEN MINUTES AFTER THE ORIGINAL LOST CONTACT WITH FLIGHT 11.

14) Flight 77 goes well off-course, (temporarily) at approximately 8:40 am.

15) At approximately 9:00am, transponder signal and radio contact is lost. The plane reverses course, and heads directly back toward Washington, at the same time that a second, hijack-confirmed plane has struck the World Trade Center. At 9:06, the FAA informs all air traffic control centers that Flight 77 has been hijacked.

16) NORAD claims it is not until 9:24 that the FAA informs them of the hijacking -TWENTY FIVE MINUTES AFTER CONTACT WITH THE PLANE HAD BEEN LOST -and all this, a full forty minutes after a known hijacked airliner had crashed into the WTC.

17) NORAD later claims that fighters were dispatched from Langley AFB, 130 miles away; when, in fact, four separate newspaper reports show fighters scrambling from Andrews AFB, (ten miles outside Washington) -AFTER the attack on the Pentagon. (San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/12/2001; NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 9/11/2001; Denver Post, 9/11/2001; Sunday Telegraph, (London), 9/14/2001).

18) The reports about Andrews were soon quashed -the military website quickly changed to show that no fighters were stationed there; and the reports about Langley did not surface until Sept. 14, contradicting both, General Myers on the 13th, and Dick Cheney on the 16th (Meet the Press, interview, 9/16/2001.)

19) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top Pentagon officials claim they were "unaware" that flight 77 was heading towards Washington; when, in fact, BY LAW, the FAA is obligated to inform the National Military Commnd Center in the Pentagon, (and the Secretary of Defense in particular) as soon as a hijacking is confirmed; that is, at 8:24, (FAA Order 7610.4J 7-1-2; CJCSI 3610.01A, 6/1/2001).

20) These regulations are partially confirmed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard B. Myers, who admits before the Senate on Sept. 13th that the Pentagon's "crisis-action team" was "up" by 8:50; yet the General fails to mention that HE was NOT EVEN NOTIFIED by the "team" that a crisis was underway for another 50 MINUTES! -that is, until AFTER the attack on the Pentagon. Neither does he explain, (nor is he asked to) why, if the crisis-action team was "up" at 8:50 am, planes were not actually scrambled until AFTER THE PENTAGON WAS HIT, (fifty minutes later). Standing before the Senate on Sept. 13th, the General changes his story twice, and says "I don't know" ten times.

21) We are further told that the Pentagon was "unaware" that Flight 93 had been hijacked, and that there were NO FIGHTERS in the vicinity when the plane went down. Yet the FAA had informed NORAD that Flight 93 had been hijacked at 9:16, FIFTY MINUTES BEFORE the crash. There is ample evidence, in fact, to suggest that there was a fighter in the immediate vicinity, and that it shot the hijacked plane down. For a very thorough analysis, see www.flight93crash.com

22) George W. Bush is aware of the crisis before he leaves his hotel in Sarasota, Florida, just before 9am. According to Vice-President Dick Cheney, "the secret service... FAA... had open lines after the World trade Center was [hit]." (Meet the Press, 9/16/2001) Cheney says he was whisked into the basement of the White House for his own protection; yet George W. Bush was clearly in a more-vulnerable position: out in the open, a very public arena, schedule well-publicized; and he continues to his appointment in a third-grade classroom. When he is updated not once, not twice, but thrice about the crisis, he continues sitting in the classroom for approximately thirty minutes.('AP' 9/12/2001, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/12/2001 Pg. A 20) Later we hear that George. W Bush is supposedly the only one who can order any shootdowns.

23) After making a brief statement at 9:30, the President takes off from Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport at 10:00 a.m. aboard Air Force One.. with no fighter protection. The plane is diverted away from Washington for nine hours, limping home with an extraordinary fighter protection, under the guise of some supposed "threat" to Airforce One,(William Saffire, New York Times, 9/12/2001, 13; CNN, "Breaking News.") All this is quietly filed away, two weeks later, by a compliant press (Washington Post, 9/27/2001, p. 12).


We don't have all the answers.
Here's what we know:

Top military officials repeatedly lied about the extent to which they were aware of the crises. Their words are not to be believed.
George W. Bush and his entourage acted as if they were in no danger -and under no urgency to act.
The apparent incompetence of the administration, military, has been matched by an exceptionally thrifty and well-coordinated fraud of an FBI investigation/conviction of the supposed hijackers, the invasion of Afghanistan, the "Patriot Act," and so on.
The media neglected to raise the most-elementary questions about government/military behavior in the worst case of security breakdown in U.S. history - costing over 3,000 lives.


The unanswered questions remain.



Have a comment?
Send me an Email I'd love to hear from you!