Archive for the 'Bush' Category

Bush Compromised

President Bush has never been big on compromise. Whenever he spoke of bipartisanship, it always seemed to mean that Democrats should give him exactly what he demanded. But this week he described what I’d consider to be a very big compromise he made, and it seems he didn’t even realize it.

In his farewell address a few nights ago, he made the following statements to explain the idea (or at least what he currently claims to be the idea) behind his invasion of Iraq:

Bush smilingAs we address these challenges — and others we cannot foresee tonight — America must maintain our moral clarity. I’ve often spoken to you about good and evil, and this has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two of them there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere. Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense — and to advance the cause of peace.

In her column in today’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd commented on that statement:

It’s astonishing that, as banks continue to fail and Americans continue to lose jobs and homes, W. was obtuse enough to go on TV and give a canned ode to can-do-ism. “Good and evil are present in this world,” he reiterated, “and between the two of them there can be no compromise.”

He gives the good-and-evil view of things a bad name. Good and evil are not like the Redskins and the Cowboys. Good and evil intermingle in the same breath, let alone the same society. A moral analysis cannot be a simplistic analysis.

But I think she missed the most obvious irony in what Bush said. Look at the three sentences in the middle of Bush’s paragraph:

But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two of them there can be no compromise.

Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.

Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right.

All three sentences involve absolutes: no compromise, wrong every time, everywhere, eternally right. There’s no wiggle room in any of those sentences.

The concept that freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right is an ideology. Bush tends to use the word “ideology” in a pejorative sense, but it really just means a system of beliefs. Bush believes in spreading freedom. That’s part of his ideology.

He sought to advance that ideology by invading Iraq. And of course when you go to war, people get killed, including civilians. That’s certainly the case with the war in Iraq. Innocents were killed in Bush’s effort to advance his ideology of spreading freedom.

So in doing something that he views as “eternally right,” (that is, good) he had to do something he views as “wrong every time, everywhere” (evil).

It seems to me that that’s a compromise between good and evil — something he claims can’t exist.

Google Buzz Tags: , , , , ,

The Ownership Society

Remember when Dubsy used to talk about his dream of an “Ownership Society”? It was a big part of his platform, involving his tax cuts, his efforts to privatize Social Security, and housing. Here’s some of the stuff we used to hear from him all the time:

June 18, 2002 – Department of Housing and Urban Development

GW BushBut I believe owning something is a part of the American Dream, as well. I believe when somebody owns their own home, they’re realizing the American Dream. They can say it’s my home, it’s nobody else’s home. (Applause.) And we saw that yesterday in Atlanta, when we went to the new homes of the new homeowners. And I saw with pride firsthand, the man say, welcome to my home. He didn’t say, welcome to government’s home; he didn’t say, welcome to my neighbor’s home; he said, welcome to my home. I own the home, and you’re welcome to come in the home, and I appreciate it. (Applause.) He was a proud man. He was proud that he owns the property. And I was proud for him. And I want that pride to extend all throughout our country.

One of the things that we’ve got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and — one goal and a problem.

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I’ve set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 — million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it’s going to mean we’re going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we’re here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

I’m going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.)

And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that’s too high, I’m not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don’t have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I’ve asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy. (Applause.)

We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year — 40,000 families a year — will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that’s owning their own home. (Applause.)

The second barrier to ownership is the lack of affordable housing. There are neighborhoods in America where you just can’t find a house that’s affordable to purchase, and we need to deal with that problem. The best way to do so, I think, is to set up a single family affordable housing tax credit to the tune of $2.4 billion over the next five years to encourage affordable single family housing in inner-city America. (Applause.)

The third problem is the fact that the rules are too complex. People get discouraged by the fine print on the contracts. They take a look and say, well, I’m not so sure I want to sign this. There’s too many words. (Laughter.) There’s too many pitfalls. So one of the things that the Secretary is going to do is he’s going to simplify the closing documents and all the documents that have to deal with homeownership.

It is essential that we make it easier for people to buy a home, not harder. And in order to do so, we’ve got to educate folks. Some of us take homeownership for granted, but there are people — obviously, the home purchase is a significant, significant decision by our fellow Americans. We’ve got people who have newly arrived to our country, don’t know the customs. We’ve got people in certain neighborhoods that just aren’t really sure what it means to buy a home. And it seems like to us that it makes sense to have a outreach program, an education program that explains the whys and wherefores of buying a house, to make it easier for people to not only understand the legal implications and ramifications, but to make it easier to understand how to get a good loan.

January 15, 2004 – New Orleans

A compassionate society must promote opportunity for all of us including the independence and dignity that come from ownership. This administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. See, we want more people owning their own home. We have a minority home ownership gap in America. I proposed a plan to the Congress, starting with helping with the poorest of poor make a downpayment for a home, to close that gap. It’s in the national interest that more people own their own home.

That was some great stuff. Very inspiring. I wonder why he never seems to bring it up anymore.

Google Buzz Tags: ,

Save Us, Dubsy!

I love this thing. I saw it at Crooks and Liars, and they got it from Spread the love, people. Let’s viralofy this bugger.

Bush Worried About New Threat

Google Buzz Tags: , , , ,

Congressional Democrats Utterly Impotent

George BushLet’s have ourselves a little history lesson. The became law in 1978. It was intended to regulate searches and surveillance on sources of foreign intelligence in order to protect American citizens from having their civil rights infringed on. How was it to work?

FISA provides two documents for the authorization of surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant for the electronic cameras if “there is probable cause to believe that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3). Second, FISA permits the President or his delegate to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party”. 50 U.S.C. §1802(a)(1).

A lot of civil libertarians were pretty upset over this. After all, we’re talking about a secret court authorizing secret surveillance, and the Justice Department didn’t even have to wait for the court to authorize their activities before they started.

Fast forward to 2001, when (say it with me) September 11 changed everything.

The White House put through an executive order authorizing the NSA to begin tapping phone calls without either gaining permission from the FISC in advance, or even letting them know about it before the 72 hour deadline. Why? Apparently, it was because September 11 changed everything. The White House felt that they needed to be able to move quickly against threats, and that FISA was just too slow and clumsy to keep up with them. They never really explained why a law that allowed them to go ahead and bug people and then get permission three days later was too slow, but it was probably just because, you know, September 11 changed everything.

On to August of 2006:

On August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional under the Fourth and First Amendments and enjoined the NSA from using the program to conduct electronic surveillance “in contravention of [FISA or Title III]“.In her ruling, she wrote:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.

Of course, the judge failed to take into account that September 11 changed everything.

So we found ourselves in a situation where the executive branch requested that the legislature clarify FISA — basically to give them more latitude, by allowing the Attorney General to make the final decision as to whether surveillance was justified in each case. But the Democrats took the majority (albeit a narrow one) in both houses of Congress last year. Of course, they would fight this effort.

Then again, this is the same Democratic majority that folded on Bush’s funding request for the war in Iraq, despite the fact that they were swept into office on a wave of dissatisfaction and anger over Bush and his war. In other words, the public gave them the majority to stop Bush.

Well, they’ve done it again. First the Senate, and then the House voted to approve Bush’s plan. The only compromise, if you can call it that, is that in six months they’re going to revisit the issue. In other words, in six months they’ll wimp out and approve this crap all over again.

Do they not understand what’s going on here? Their majority isn’t big enough to overturn a presidential veto. I get that. But their majority is big enough to stop Bush’s programs from being approved. When he says they’re endangering Americans and emboldening the enemy (because September 11 changed everything), they have to clearly and loudly respond by stating that he is lying in order to keep us afraid so that he can continue to strip away what’s left of our civil rights. They mustn’t give him an inch.

So they just roll over and let him have everything. Fucking everything.

Some people say the Democrats are doing this in order to make it clear that this is Bush’s war, thus giving them a political advantage in next year’s election. Bullshit. Do they give a damn about the country at all? You don’t stand by and let these people eviscerate the Constitution in order to have something to put in your negative ads.

Rush D. Holt, a representative from New Jersey, is quoted as follows:

I’m not comfortable suspending the constitution even temporarily. The countries we detest around the world are the ones that spy on their own people. Usually they say they do it for the sake of public safety and security.

I can’t understand how a single member of the Democratic party could vote for this. It’s absolutely disgusting, and folding because of fear mongering and a threat to have your vacation delayed is just cowardly.

To hell with them.

Google Buzz Tags: , , , , ,

McGovern Responds to Cheney

George McGovernAre you old enough to remember ? I am. In fact, the 1972 presidential election is the first one I was aware of before it was over. All I remember from 1968 is seeing a picture of Nixon with the caption “Our New President” in Scholastic Scope. But in ’72, when I was 9, I remember an older friend (10, maybe 11) taking me to the local McGovern campaign office, where I was given an enormous (to me at the time) poster: a black and white photo of the candidate. It was on such thin paper it would tear if you looked at it too hard.

Apparently, Dark Overlord Cheney recently compared today’s Democratic party to the McGovern platform, and McGovern responded in the LA Times. This is great stuff. McGovern tears Cheney’s claims apart, point by point.

George McGovern: Cheney Is Wrong About Me, Wrong About War

Vice President Dick Cheney recently attacked my 1972 presidential platform and contended that today’s Democratic Party has reverted to the views I advocated in 1972. In a sense, this is a compliment, both to me and the Democratic Party. Cheney intended no such compliment. Instead, he twisted my views and those of my party beyond recognition. The city where the vice president spoke, Chicago, is sometimes dubbed “the Windy City.” Cheney converted the chilly wind of Chicago into hot air.

Cheney said that today’s Democrats have adopted my platform from the 1972 presidential race and that, in doing so, they will raise taxes. But my platform offered a balanced budget. I proposed nothing new without a carefully defined way of paying for it. By contrast, Cheney and his team have run the national debt to an all-time high.

He also said that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq and leave the U.S. exposed to new dangers. The truth is that I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the U.S. and diminished our standing in the world and our national security.

In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush.

Cheney charged that today’s Democrats don’t appreciate the terrorist danger when they move to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war. The fact is that Bush and Cheney misled the public when they implied that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. That was the work of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda team. Cheney and Bush blew the effort to trap Bin Laden in Afghanistan by their sluggish and inept response after the 9/11 attacks.

They then foolishly sent U.S. forces into Iraq against the advice and experience of such knowledgeable men as former President George H.W. Bush, his secretary of State, James A. Baker III, and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft.

Just as the Bush administration mistakenly asserted Iraq’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks, it also falsely contended that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson exploded the myth that Iraq attempted to obtain nuclear materials from Niger, Cheney’s top aide and other Bush officials leaked to the media that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent (knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal).

In attacking my positions in 1972 as representative of “that old party of the early 1970s,” Cheney seems oblivious to the realities of that time. Does he remember that the Democratic Party, with me in the lead, reformed the presidential nomination process to ensure that women, young people and minorities would be represented fairly? The so-called McGovern reform rules are still in effect and, indeed, have been largely copied by the Republicans.

The Democrats’ 1972 platform was also in the forefront in pushing for affordable healthcare, full employment with better wages, a stronger environmental and energy effort, support for education at every level and a foreign policy with less confrontation and belligerence and more cooperation and conciliation.

Cheney also still has his eyes closed to the folly of the Vietnam War, in which 58,000 young Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese died. Vietnam was no threat to the United States.

On one point I do agree with Cheney: Today’s Democrats are taking positions on the Iraq war similar to the views I held toward the Vietnam War. But that is all to the good.

The war in Iraq has greatly increased the terrorist danger. There was little or no terrorism, insurgency or civil war in Iraq before Bush and Cheney took us into war there five years ago. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism, a bloody insurgency against our troops and a civil war.

Beyond the deaths of more than 3,100 young Americans and an estimated 600,000 Iraqis, we have spent nearly $500 billion on the war, which has dragged on longer than World War II.

The Democrats are right. Let’s bring our troops home from this hopeless war.

There is one more point about 1972 for Cheney’s consideration. After winning 11 state primaries in a field of 16 contenders, I won the Democratic presidential nomination. I then lost the general election to President Nixon. Indeed, the entrenched incumbent president, with a campaign budget 10 times the size of mine, the power of the White House behind him and a highly negative and unethical campaign, defeated me overwhelmingly. But lest Cheney has forgotten, a few months after the election, investigations by the Senate and an impeachment proceeding in the House forced Nixon to become the only president in American history to resign the presidency in disgrace.

Who was the real loser of ’72?

The Vice President spoke with contempt of my ’72 campaign, but he might do well to recall that I began that effort with these words: “I make one pledge above all others — to seek and speak the truth.” We made some costly tactical errors after winning the nomination, but I never broke my pledge to speak the truth. That is why I have never felt like a loser since 1972. In contrast, Cheney and Bush have repeatedly lied to the American people.

It is my firm belief that the Cheney-Bush team has committed offenses that are worse than those that drove Nixon, Vice President Spiro Agnew and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from office after 1972. Indeed, as their repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law, come under increased consideration, I expect to see Cheney and Bush forced to resign their offices before 2008 is over.

Aside from a growing list of impeachable offenses, the vice president has demonstrated his ignorance of foreign policy by attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. Apparently he thinks it is wrong to visit important Middle East states that sometimes disagree with us. Isn’t it generally agreed that Nixon’s greatest achievement was talking to the Chinese Communist leaders, which opened the door to that nation? And wasn’t President Reagan’s greatest achievement talking with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev until the two men worked out an end to the Cold War? Does Cheney believe that it’s better to go to war rather than talk with countries with which we have differences?

We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it’s wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.

On a more serious note, instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: “A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.”


Google BuzzNo tags for this post.

Poor Poor Mr Gonzales

Alberto GonzalesSo all the conservatives (with the apparent exception of Rash Lumbago) are pushing to get rid of poor Alberto Gonzales because the Justice Department did such a lousy job of firing those US attorneys. What a sea change!

Bull. Yes, Gonzales is inept. Is that why they want him gone? Of course not. Conservatives have never liked Gonzales, so they’re fine with making him the scapegoat in this affair. That way, they can not only ditch an AG they’ve never felt had the right right-wing credentials, but they can shut down the scandal. The fact is that the cover up is all about how the White House has taken the Department of Justice and turned it into a wing of the RNC, not how the DOJ made a mess of the records of the firing of political appointees who serve “at the pleasure of the president.”

Yes, Gonzales should go, because he’s lousy at his job, because he thinks the Geneva Conventions are “quaint,” because he was instrumental in dropping Habeas Corpus, because of torture, rendition, lying to Congress, and because he acts based on the perspective of seeing himself as Bush’s lawyer, not the country’s top officer of the law. But getting rid of Gonzales shouldn’t be the last word in a very real scandal that conservatives would have you think is a tempest in a teapot. This is much bigger than one incompetent AG.


Google BuzzNo tags for this post.

No Show Trials!

BushAlright, so Bush has a “reasonable” proposal and he’s giving up an “unprecedented” amount of information. He doesn’t want “show trials” or “fishing expeditions” with “klieg lights”. So how about a compromise: bring in Rove and Miers, put them under oath, in public, live on C-Span, and give them hell when they purger themselves, but Leahy will promise that there will be no klieg lights. Bush seems overly concerned about them. He mentioned them twice.

They can just do it in the daytime.

Tags: ,

Google BuzzNo tags for this post.

Waxman Kicking Ass and Taking Names

Henry WaxmanHenry Waxman is clearly loving his access to information now that he’s no longer in the minority. Here’s a chunk of a letter he sent to Rice today. You can read the whole thing, including the footnotes, as a .pdf file if you like.

Since 2003, I have been asking why President Bush and other top Administration officials used fabricated intelligence about lraq’s efforts to obtain uranium from Niger to justify launching the Iraq war. I first wrote to the President about this matter on March 17, 2003, two days before the start of the Iraq war. In my letter, I asked why the President had included the bogus Niger claim in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, the most heavily vetted speech a president makes. I wrote:

In the last ten days … it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What’s more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration officials were citing it in public statements. This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened.

To this day, however, I have not received an adequate explanation to my question. The President did not respond to my letter, nor did you respond to multiple letters I sent you about this matter.

Soon after the bogus Niger claim was exposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, you appeared on national television and claimed that you were never informed of any doubts about the allegation. On Meet the Press on June 8, 2003, you made the following statement:

We did not know at the time – no one knew at the time, in our circles – maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.

Similarly, when you appeared on This Week, you repeated this statement, claiming that you made multiple inquiries of the intelligence agencies regarding the allegation that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. You stated:

George, somebody, somebody down may have known. But I will tell you that when this issue was raised with the intelligence community … the intelligence community did not know at that time, or at levels that got to us, that this, that there were serious questions about this report.

After you made these assertions, I wrote to you on June 10,2003, asking for specific information to support your claims, including the identity of any individuals in the Administration who had expressed doubts about the validity of the evidence or who were made aware of any doubts, as well as other information. You did not respond.

In the weeks that followed, you and President Bush continued to claim that you had never heard any doubts about the Niger claim prior to the President’s State of the Union address. On July 13, 2003, for example, you made this statement on Face the Natíon:

[H]ad there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in … it would have been gone.

The next day, President Bush made a similar assertion. At a press briefing on July 14, 2003, the President stated: “Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared.”

It was subsequently revealed, however, that the CIA had sent a memo directly to you and your deputy at the time, Stephen Hadley, raising doubts about the Niger claim months before the President’s State of the Union address. According to Mr. Hadley, the CIA sent a memo directly to the White House Situation Room addressed to you and him on October 6, 2002, that described “weakness in the evidence” and that stated “the CIA had been telling Congress that the Africa story was one of two issues where we differed with the British intelligence.”‘ Mr. Hadley also reported that the CIA sent a second memo to him a day earlier, and that George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, personally telephoned him to ask that the reference be removed from a speech the President delivered in October 2002.

Because these revelations directly contradicted your previous public statements, I wrote to you again, on July 29, 2003, seeking an explanation. I requested copies of numerous documents, including the CIA memo addressed to you and Mr. Hadley. I also sought information about what kind of investigation you initiated after you learned that the Niger documents were forgeries, and I asked what role you and your staff played in drafting the National Intelligence Estimate submitted to Congress on this issue. Again, you did not respond.

As a result of your failure to respond, the Committee still does not know what you knew about the fabricated Niger claim and when you knew it. We also do not know how the fabricated claim made it into the President’s State of the Union address. We continue to learn in a piecemeal fashion about other explicit wamings received by White House officials about this bogus claim. According to one recent press account, for example, CIA briefer Craig R. Schmall wrote a memo to Eric Edelman, Vice President Cheney’s national security advisor, warning that the “CIA on several occasions has cautioned … that available information on this issue was fragmentary and unconfirmed.” Yet we still do not know who at the White House kept resuscitating this claim after intelligence officials questioned its veracity.

I respectfully request a complete reply to my questions and document requests relating to the fabricated Niger claim by March 23, 2007.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Google BuzzNo tags for this post.

Bush’s Religious Freedom Scam

First Freedom FirstI’ve mentioned before. They’re very much on what I consider to be the right side of the religious freedom debate. That is, they support the idea that freedom of religion absolutely includes freedom from religion.

Today, I got an email from them that deserves to be spread around, so here it is.

First Freedom Faked!

Dear Friend of First Freedom First,

When we learned this week of a newly unveiled Department of Justice (DOJ) initiative titled the “First Freedom Project,” our interest peaked. After comparing it to our own effort, First Freedom First we were deeply disappointed.

First Freedom First would welcome an initiative by Bush administration officials to truly preserve and protect religious freedom in America, but their track record shows that they only believe in half of the First Amendment’s two religious freedom clauses. The DOJ’s First Freedom Project is a scam.

How timely and hypocritical. Next week in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, administration lawyers will argue before the Supreme Court that taxpayers should be denied the legal right to challenge government spending that favors religion.

So this week, they unveil a program that claims to protect our religious liberties. No administration in our history has trampled the First Amendment more than the Bush administration.

Deceptively naming this program First Freedom is a typical strategy of the Bush administration. The title hides its true purpose, just like the USA PATRIOT Act, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and No Child Left Behind.

In the most religiously diverse nation in the world, religious freedom is for everybody. It’s not the freedom of our government to impose or even favor one religion over others. We invite everyone who cares about religious freedom to compare the attorney general’s First Freedom Project with First Freedom First.

Our petition has already been signed by over 100,000 people and will be presented to political leaders throughout the nation to encourage their renewed commitment to the First Amendment.

To help safeguard separation of church and state and protect religious liberty, please forward the petition to at least one friend.

Thanks again for your support!

All the Best,

Beth Corbin and Bethany Moore of
Donna Red Wing and Eric Shutt of

Tags: , ,

Google BuzzNo tags for this post.

Oy, America

Jesus’ General provides us with this pleasant discussion between Pat Leahy and Alberto Gonzales about Mr. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was sent on a little detour to Syria on his way home to Montreal.

The RCMP and the Canadian government have officially apologized to Arar for their small role in this. The US government, not so much.

Google BuzzNo tags for this post.

Next Page »