"Bush approved intelligence leak"

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'll remind you again that separation of Church and State means that the Government cannot establish a religion (a la "the official church of the USA will be the Church of Blumptyblump"), not that all gov't officials have to be atheists.

BUT in the case of THIS ADMINISTRATION.. THEY MUST pass the LITMUS TEST and believe as the President does. or they stand NO chance of getting one of the political crony jobs so sought after..

DID you BOTHER to actually READ the LINk.. NO...
http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm


Influence of Religious Right on Bush Administration Appointments
A Disastrous Appointment, Salon, January 6, 2005

Political Screening for All Park Service Managers, PEER, October 13, 2005

Bush Cronyism Weakens Government Agencies, Bloomberg, September 30, 2005

Lobbying From Within, New York Times, June 17, 2005

Attorney General John Ashcroft was the first highly visible Bush nomination. Ashcroft, member of the Federalist Society and former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, changed a custom followed by every President of the past fifty years, Republican and Democrat, when he stopped using the American Bar Association to review judicial nominations. Ashcroft's extreme religious beliefs and attacks on civil liberties are well known.

Morton Blackwell, a leader of the Religious Right, told U.S News and World Report that in the fall of 1999, a group of conservative leaders met with then-candidate Bush seeking a promise that if elected, he would appoint movement conservatives to his cabinet. Blackwell said, "He is keeping that promise" and "John Ashcroft is an example of that."

The most far-reaching impact will come from Bush's judicial nominations to the federal benches who will be serving lifetime appointments. He appointed two very controversial federal judges without Congressional approval, during Senate recess.

Bush has nominated W. David Hager to the powerful Food and Drug Administration's panel on women's health policy. Hager believes women should turn to the Bible and Christ for healing and joined a Christian Medical Associate's drive calling on the FDA to reverse its approval of RU-486, the 'abortion pill.'

President Bush is allegedly considering J. Robert Brame III, board member of Reconstructionist group, American Vision, as a member of the National Labor Relations Board.

General William Boykin, appointed to a senior Defense Department post, has repeatedly explained that America's enemy was "a spiritual enemy ... called Satan." The enemy will only be defeated, according to General Boykin, "if we come against them in the name of Jesus."

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld just shrugs at Boykin's remarks. "We're a free people," Rumsfeld points out. Yes, we enjoy freedom of speech, but such inflammatory statements from the deputy undersecretary for intelligence -- a man in the highest uniform -- only serves to ignite the muslim world against us.

A Muslim rights group called for Boykin to be reassigned from his job, which includes evaluating and providing resources for the intelligence needs of military commanders. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said,

"Putting a man with such extremist views in a critical policy-making position sends entirely the wrong message to a Muslim world that is already skeptical about America's motives and intentions,"
Bush's hawks moving up -- or out? Boston Globe, March 23, 2005

Destroying the National Parks, New York Times, August 29, 2005: article about Bush's appointee, John Hoffman, to rewrite National Park guidelines.

Bush's Newest Crusader, TomPaine, December 1, 2005

Paul Bonicelli [has been appointed] to be deputy director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which is in charge of all programs to promote democracy and good governance overseas.

Bonicelli is dean of academic affairs at tiny Patrick Henry College in rural Virginia. The fundamentalist institution's motto is "For Christ and Liberty." It requires that all of its 300 students sign a 10-part "statement of faith" declaring, among other things, that they believe "Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God come in the flesh;" that "Jesus Christ literally rose bodily from the dead"; and that hell is a place where "all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity."


Transformation from Secular to Religious Government
Under the Bush administration, our country is experiencing a major transformation from a secular to a religious government. The President's faith-based initiative is central to this transformation and raises serious questions about church-state separation. "Slouching toward theocracy. President Bush's faith-based initiative is doing better than you think," by Bill Berkowitz, 2/6/04 provides an overview of this transformation.

In his State of the Union address, Bush renewed a call for Congress to make permanent his faith-based proposals that would allow religious organizations to compete for more government contracts and grants without a strict separation between their religious activities and social service programs.

On February 4, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for provisions in a social services bill that allow religiously based job discrimination in publicly funded programs run by churches.

How Much Money?

How much are taxpayers paying for what Barry Lynn, Executive Director of American's United calls "federally subsidized employment discrimination?" According to Daniel Zwerdling who produced two programs on faith-based initiative for Bill Moyers TV show NOW in September, 2003, "administration spokesmen say they can't break down how much money has gone so far to religious groups .. they claim they don't keep that information."

The March, 2004, issue of Church and State reports that the "Faith Czar" Jim Towey announced to reporters that $40 billion dollars was now available to religious charities.

By studying White House press releases and the White House web site, Daniel Zwerdling found that religious groups could apply to more than a hundred federal programs that gave out more than $65 billion. In addition, religious groups ccould apply for more money through state-administered programs.

From the Washington Post, January 4, 2005:

.. in 2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion in grants from federal agencies, according to documents provided by the White House to the Associated Press.

That's not enough, said H. James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. An additional $40 billion in federal money is given out by state governments, he said..

This is the text of an executive order signed by Bush on June 1.

On September 22, 2003, the White House announced new rules making $28 billion available to religious charities that proselytize and discriminate in hiring. Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry in Metro New York claims "The White House has taken what may be its boldest step yet to blur the constitutional separation of church and state." While the White House announced these controversial new rules, the media hardly paid attention.

While religious charities receive billions of dollars, federal programs are experiencing funding cuts. The largest federally funded after-school program, the $1 billion-a-year 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is threatened with a budget reduction of $400 million for the Fiscal Year 2004. The resulting cuts in Washington D.C. alone could eliminate after-school services for 2,902 District children.

As reported in the Washington Post, Congress has ordered more than $3 million in grants since 2001 earmarked for respected former Redskins cornerback Darrell Green's Youth Life Foundation, with the goal in part of opening more Green learning centers here and in other cities. But his center is directly serving only 38 kids, in a city where 35,000 live in poverty.

From Church and State editorial, March 9, 2004:
The Corporation for National and Community Service has allocated $324,000 in Americorps funding for staffing at four daycare centers run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.

But The Children's Crusade, a mentoring program that has won national honors, lost all its budget of half a million dollars. The group had hoped to partner 35 young adults with poor minority children. That won't be happening now.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been following Bush's Faith-Based Initiative since he assumed the office of President. They have filed lawsuits, and their magazine, Church and State, has many important, in-depth articles.

From Americans United, August 17, 2004:

A new study of the "faith-based" initiative raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's disregard for constitutional and civil rights protections, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The report issued today by the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy lists the many executive actions President George W. Bush has taken to fund a wide range of religion-based social services. The sweeping changes in federal policy, the report indicates, have come without congressional authorization.

Philadelphia Church That Endorsed Bush Gets $1 Million 'Faith-Based' Grant
Wednesday June 23, 2004

"The Rev. Lusk endorsed candidate Bush, and wound up getting a $1-million faith-based grant from the Bush administration," [Barry] Lynn said. "Now there's a heavenly payoff."

"Faith-Based Fiat," January, 2003, Church and State:

"On Dec. 12, speaking to over 1,000 religious and charitable leaders gathered at the Downtown Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia, George W. Bush launched another major offensive in his drive to implement his controversial "faith-based" initiative. Circumventing a reluctant Congress, which has refused to enact the administration's scheme, Bush announced a sweeping package of executive actions to encourage churches and other religious groups to apply for billions in government contracts to help the disadvantaged."
"Faith-Based Foray," From Church and State, October, 2002,

"Not willing to let a skeptical Congress delay its plan for government-funded religion, the Bush administration is moving ahead with the faith-based initiative anyway."
"Faith-Based Victory," Church and State, May, 2003, brings good news! A powerful coalition formed in the U.S. Senate to derail President Bush and U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's efforts to pass legislation making it legal to discriminate in employment. As a result, the final legislation is nothing like the Bush/Santorum plan. This 'good news' article affirms the power of coalition building in the Senate.

"Faith-Based Failure," Church and State, November, 2002, highlights a report documenting major problems with the Faith Based program that has been implemented in Texas for the past five year

"The Bush 'Faith-Based' Orders: Dangerous Decrees, Church and State. On Dec. 12, 2002, President George W. Bush issued two executive orders putting into place his controversial "faith-based" initiative, February, 2003. (So far, I haven't been able to find this article on AU's newly reformatted web site -jb) more

Faith-Based Sex-Education

Sierra magazine, January-February, 2004, has a feature article on abstinence-only education in the public schools. Federally funded programs are based on fear and end up proselytizing. A Louisianna state judge has ruled that the proselytizing must stop or the programs risk defunding.

"For Louisianna seventh graders, abstinence-only education appears first and foremost to be about terrifying diseases: suppurating boils, endless rashes, sterility, cancers, and the physical and psychic morbidity with which they are to be punished for having sex before marriage."

"Hundreds of federally funded abstinence-only programs are run by faith-based groups. The Louisianna American Civil Liberties Union found that ... thousands of dollars went to programs that included prayers as well as continuous referrences to God, Jesus Christ, and the spiritual repercussions of sex before marriage."

Faith Base Lock Up

In Lawtey, Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush dedicated what is being called the nation's first religion-based prison.
A North Florida prison will be converted into the nation's first faith-based lockup. Critics say public money shouldn't be spent on religious programs.

"This is a clearly unconstitutional scheme," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "A state can no more create a faith-based prison than it could set up faith-based public schools or faith-based police departments."

Americans United filed a lawsuit to block a similar state-sponsored fundamentalist Christian project operating with public funds at a prison in Iowa. That case, which challenges state support of Charles Colson's InnerChange program, is pending in federal court.

How the the InnerChange Prison Fellowship program cooked the books so that the program's failure looks like a success. To read about Americans United current litigation, click here.

Faith-Based Parks

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a non-profit group that represents park workers and public employees, charged in a release last week that the National Park Service is hell-bent on removing images of anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, pro-choice marches and gay rights marches from an eight-minute video tape located at the Lincoln Memorial covering historic gatherings that have taken place there and on the Washington Mall.

"The park service leadership now caters exclusively to conservative Christian fundamentalist groups," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch in his group's release. "The Bush Administration appears to be sponsoring a program of Faith-Based Parks."

"... morality conservative groups have a special entree with decision makers at the Park Service and the White House."

The federal government lost a lawsuit when a federal court ruled that a program crossed the line between church and state. From the Washington Post July 6, 2004: "America Corps Loses Suit on Religion:"

The federal agency that oversees AmeriCorps must stop financing programs that place volunteers in Catholic schools, a judge has ruled, saying it unconstitutionally crosses the line between church and state.

Faith-Based Coercion

Increasingly--and more often than not, with the explicit cheerleading and support of dominionist groups--there is an emphasis for reliance on "faith based" initiatives, such as "faith based" rehab programs, "faith based" disaster aid charities, etc. Unfortunately, this is often turning into a chance for faith-based coercion--often on what is, quite literally, a captive audience. more

[mnealtx 0]

And Bill tried to appoint President Hillary to run a national healthcare program... Reagan had a staff astrologer. Carter appointed some like-minded people as I recall.

I'm not saying that I agree with the decisions, ok? I'm saying that the decisions do NOT constitute a break of the First Amendment.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'm not saying that I agree with the decisions, ok? I'm saying that the decisions do NOT constitute a break of the First Amendment.

But tacit approval and support for it.. DOES lead us there in the not too distant future..

I guess all of you on the right are more than willing to give up our constitution on this slippery slope... for what????

More security???

To feel Safer???

I dont get it... We do NOT have more security... we are NOT safer... because the real issues have yet to be adressed here in this country... borders..ports.... if they want to hit us they still can.. INSTEAD... the support for failed policies are taking us to a country we will not recognize.... but some in Europe sure do recognize where its going..... they ahve already slid down that slippery slope once before.

[mnealtx 0]

How so? Do you REALLY expect the American people to support something like that? The establishment of a "National Church"?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

How so? Do you REALLY expect the American people to support something like that? The establishment of a "National Church"?

A hell of a lot of people in the religious right sure would.. its a defacto reality already in this country. They want THEIR policies implimented

http://americantheocracy.net/

American Theocracy may be the most alarming analysis of where we are and where we may be going to have appeared in many years. It is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and frighteningly persuasive...By describing a series of major transformations, by demonstrating the relationships among them, and by discussing them with passionate restraint, Phillips has created a harrowing picture of danger that no American reader will welcome, but that none should ignore."

The New York Times Book Review

Some interesting excerpts found here

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5290373

In its recent practice, the radical side of U.S. religion has embraced cultural antimodernism, war hawkishness, Armageddon prophecy, and in the case of conservative fundamentalists, a demand for governments by literal biblical interpretation. In the 1800s, religious historians generally minimized the sectarian thrust of religious excess, but recent years have brought more candor. The evangelical, fundamentalist, sectarian, and radical threads of American religion are being proclaimed openly and analyzed widely, even though bluntness is frequently muted by a pseudo-tolerance, the polite reluctance to criticize another's religion. However given the wider thrust of religion's claims on public life, this hesitance falls somewhere between unfortunate and dangerous. Charles Kimball, a North Carolina Baptist and professor of religion, speaks very much to the point: "Although many of us have been taught it is not polite to discuss religion and politics in public, we must quickly unlearn that lesson. Our collective failure to challenge presuppositions, think anew, and openly debate central religious concerns affecting society is a recipe for disaster."1

[mnealtx 0]

Yes, Jeanne... and I'm sure that if I wanted to search, I could find an equal number of atheist/liberal websites that want to do away with any churches and have THEIR views/policies implimented.

I still don't see it happening... that amendment would never pass the States.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

Separation of church and state? Please, do we have to go through this again? Separation of church and state is that gov't will not establish a state religion, or prevent a religion from being established, NOT that everyone in gov't has to be atheist...

Actually, it's neither.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Separation of church and state? Please, do we have to go through this again? Separation of church and state is that gov't will not establish a state religion, or prevent a religion from being established, NOT that everyone in gov't has to be atheist...

Actually, it's neither.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Blues,
Dave

Thanks for making my point! .gov has NOT established a religion or prohibited the exercise of religion..

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thanks for making my point! .gov has NOT established a religion or prohibited the exercise of religion..

Please point out to me where it says, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". It doesn't say that.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thanks for making my point! .gov has NOT established a religion or prohibited the exercise of religion..

Please point out to me where it says, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". It doesn't say that.

Blues,
Dave

From Emerson vs. Board of Education":

Quote

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

From Emerson vs. Board of Education":

Quote

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

And therein you have made my point. Separation of church and state is a hell of a lot more than simply banning the government from establishing a state religion, and your quote makes that very, very clear.

I especially like this part:

Quote

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

I would say that Bush's faith-based charity program at least walks a damned fine line with regard to the above statement, and I imagine it crosses that line with some regularity.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And therein you have made my point. Separation of church and state is a hell of a lot more than simply banning the government from establishing a state religion, and your quote makes that very, very clear.

I especially like this part:
Quote
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

I would say that Bush's faith-based charity program at least walks a damned fine line with regard to the above statement, and I imagine it crosses that line with some regularity.

I certainly won't argue against your point, and in fact agree with it, if true. Can you show me where a tax has been levied in support of such religious activities or institutions? I was unaware that a new tax had been created to support the faith-based charities.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

I would say that Bush's faith-based charity program at least walks a damned fine line with regard to the above statement, and I imagine it crosses that line with some regularity.

I certainly won't argue against your point, and in fact agree with it, if true. Can you show me where a tax has been levied in support of such religious activities or institutions? I was unaware that a new tax had been created to support the faith-based charities.

It doesn't say that it would have to be a "new" tax. Taxes cannot be collected ("levied") and used to support religious institutions.

The better argument against such a position is that the federal funding of religious charities is from the deficit side of our budget, thus no taxes have been collected to fund them.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

I would say that Bush's faith-based charity program at least walks a damned fine line with regard to the above statement, and I imagine it crosses that line with some regularity.

I certainly won't argue against your point, and in fact agree with it, if true. Can you show me where a tax has been levied in support of such religious activities or institutions? I was unaware that a new tax had been created to support the faith-based charities.

It doesn't say that it would have to be a "new" tax. Taxes cannot be collected ("levied") and used to support religious institutions.

The better argument against such a position is that the federal funding of religious charities is from the deficit side of our budget, thus no taxes have been collected to fund them.

Blues,
Dave

I see your point, but disagree. How can you collect on a tax, if it has not been created? His statement makes it clear that he is referring to a specific tax being levied to support a religious activity or institution, which makes the "deficit side funding" a moot point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Bush approved intelligence leak

Bush approved of an INTELLIGENCE leak??

Isn't that kind of like Kate Moss getting liposuction????

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[livendive 8]

Quote

I see your point, but disagree. How can you collect on a tax, if it has not been created? His statement makes it clear that he is referring to a specific tax being levied to support a religious activity or institution, which makes the "deficit side funding" a moot point.

You have a job and make money. You buy a car and start making payments on it. Are you earning money to make those payments?

Taxes are collected and go into a pot. Expenditures are taken out of that pot. The taxes which were collected are being used to fund all expenditures from the pot. Cutting program A to provide additional funding to program B doesn't dodge the tax collection bullet, it just means that the funding for program B came from existing taxes rather than new taxes.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

Earning money to make the car payments, yes - I did *not* get a second job specifically to make those payments, however, which is the point being made in the Justice's ruling.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Dave.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I love this. You don't know anything about me other than what I post. Then you imply that I am things that I never posted to, to as your proof and you do it with insults jabs and placing lables. You want to see pure arrogance? Look in the mirior. Why, because anyone that doesn't follow your beliefs has is something evil (I guess)

You are supporting this administration.. lock .. stock.. and barrel.... you guys on the far right are the ones claiming righteousness... and patriotism.. and you CONSTANTLY go out of your way to find questionable news sources that apologize for the shortcomings of your MAGNIFICENT President that can do no wrong.. and therefore never has to admit the mistakes he makes( well he is starting to apologize for some minor shortcomings of the political HACKS he put into offices.... but CERTAINLY the buck does not stop on his pristine desk)


This is a lie. Search my posts. I do defend this admin against your (and those like you) lies and baseless claims


I have seen you continually place labels.....I have continuously seen YOU apologize and come up with crap articles from crap news sources..... grasping for ANY straw to support your boys in power.... WHY.. because you desparately need to JUSTIFY YOUR beliefs...Most of the world can see the arrogance of this administration.. yet you desparately cling to some fantasy that its EVERYONE elses fault....

Bring on the proof, I am constantly posting info and links (besides your hated newsmax) so, you are misleading here at best

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Wow.. more noise from the ultra right.... Prove that he didnt or doesnt instead of apologizing for his shortcomings.

C'mon, Jeanne, you're better than this - if you want to debate, then DEBATE. As for proof - you're making the accusations, it's your job to provide the proof. I'm truly interested in seeing what you have.

Don't hold your breath!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Come on.. tell us how GREAT the man is..... I am waiting.. I know what he campained on.. how many of those PROMISES has he kept.....

Integrity... GONEaccording to you

Smaller government....GONE I agree with you here

No Nation Building.....GONE


Unneccessary war that has turned into a quagmire.... YUPaccording the main stream media

Tax cuts and spending cuts for Americans....YUPhappened, where you been. This supporting the most robust ecomony in we has seen since Reagan, but I will bet you think he was an idiot too

Deficits far exceeding ANYTHING we have ever seen that your GRANDCHILDREN will be paying for.... YUPdeficits are growing but, so it the money going into the government coffers. Major reductions in the growth of it have been reported. I still don't like the spending but you are stretching it. You probably thought Clinton got rid of it too

Corruption in office.. RAMPANT thruout his administration...YUPa lie, only your charges of which most have been forgotten

Imperial Presidency that only Nixon and the Plummers could love.... YUP imotional hatred, have you ever liked a Rebulican President?

Wiretapping HUGE numbers of americans.. DOMESTICALLY without oversite... YUPThis is a lie. You fully know that no case has been brought, only (once again) charges. But I know that is what counts

ON a personal CRUSADE FROM GOD to punish the evildoers( as defined by him)... no matter how the world will react.... YUPirrational blubber at best. You afraid of something here?


GOD you cant be that blind not to see where this is all going...

You are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Theocracy

Gee anti stem cell.. based on his religion

Gee anti gays.. based on his religion

Gee school vouchers.. based on his religion

The list goes on and on.

Ah, a christian hater, oh one of ithe nclusion and tollerance party

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[rushmc 23]

Thanks for the info. I did not know that all this good stuff was going on!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I'm not saying that I agree with the decisions, ok? I'm saying that the decisions do NOT constitute a break of the First Amendment.

But tacit approval and support for it.. DOES lead us there in the not too distant future..You are a mind reader. That explains a lot

I guess all of you on the right are more than willing to give up our constitution on this slippery slope... for what????

More security???

To feel Safer???YES

I dont get it... We do NOT have more security... we are NOT safer... because the real issues have yet to be adressed here in this country... borders..ports.... if they want to hit us they still can.. INSTEAD... the support for failed policies are taking us to a country we will not recognize.... but some in Europe sure do recognize where its going..... they ahve already slid down that slippery slope once before.

nothing failed, only attacked

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Integrity... GONEaccording to you

We will just stop right here.. THIS speaks volumes in and of itself.....




I guess its not a lie unless you do it uner oath..and this Man of integrity that you worship.... will never allow that because that is what he is.

[rushmc 23]

...and now Fitzgerald says Bush did nothing wrong

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWzxmYKN1bpY&refer=us

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln