Life As It OUGHT To Be

2005-06-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

The Rape of Public Broadcasting

If there's any truth to the oft repeated maxim, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" we're about to see it underscored in the halls of Congress.

It's no secret that the Republican party is seeking absolute power and control of everything American. The own the presidency, they own both houses of Congress, and they're wearing out horses trying to gain absolute control of the Judiciary. They don't care how blatant their power grabs appear to the public. They have the ultimate cover - "God is on our side."

But it's not the stuff that's out there easily seen that bothers me. It's the takeovers of the bits and pieces of a free America and turning them into party functionaries without the notice of most Americans that scares the knickers off my backside. Things like the replacing of environmental watchdogs as heads of environmental agencies with Republican controlled anti-environmental ex-lobbyists who have laid waste to our countries natural resources and continue to damage our air, water, and land in deference to Corporate bottom lines.

Our Repubo friends are not satisfied with having their own Pravda in the Fox News Network. Nor are they satisfied with having powerful Repubo billionaires owning and controlling most of the five major news networks in this country (think Murdoch and Sinclair). Nor are they satisfied with controlling the majority of Volksempfäänger pundits from Lindbaugh to O'Reilly, Schultz to Colson. The voice of Repubo politics can be heard 24 hours a day on a plethora of Repubo controlled radio stations.

But it's not enough for these master power mongers. Now they are zeroing in on Public Broadcasting. It started with the realization that Public Radio and TV were one of the few remaining voices reaching people with the truth concerning what was happening in the world and in our country.

The Repubos figured, "Hey, we own the government and the government owns Public Broadcasting. So why not take it over?" So they did.

They appointed Kenneth Tomlinson the new chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. Tomlinson is now intent on ramming partisan "balance" (you know, like Fox News) on the airwaves. To accomplish that, he is stocking the corporation with Repubo loyalists. His next move will be to appoint the former co-chairwoman of the Repubo National Committee to the presidency of the corporation.

Repubos even have their own Reichstag Fire going in that the House Appropriations Committee recently voted not only to end taxpayers support for next year's children's shows on public radio and TV, but also to close out entirely the $400 million in federal support of the PBS.

Tomlinson is using this as justification for the changes in personnel and programming restrictions, claiming this will "make the case" for monetary support by the Feds. A true ideological putsch!

What can YOU do about this? 1. Write to your Senators and demand they block this Repubo power grab when it comes up for a vote there. 2. Get rid of all the right wing whackos in the House during the 2006 elections and restore some balance to Congress again.

Show them neither God nor the American public is on their side.

2005-06-13T14:29:00.000-07:00

The Jeffrey Price Story

A distrubing article appeared in the Wilkes-Barre, PA Times Leader a short while ago. It shows what happens when young gay men are pushed into believing their sexual orientation is a sin and that they can somehow change it.

Jeffrey Price, a gay young man age twenty, had been fighting his sexuality for a long time. Deep depression, two suicide attempts, and five stays in psychiatric wards marked his struggle, a reality not uncommon among gays his age. There was also a constant, driving fear that he let his father down. Jeff's life ended in May of last year, cut short by what police described as "an accidental self-inflicted gunshot to the head."

As a fourteen-year old, Jeff explained to his parents that, "I like boys. I'm not really attracted to girls." His mother's reaction was, "If you're trying to tell us you're gay honey, that doesn't change you as a person. You're still my son and you still have a beautiful heart. You're still the same person."

But Jeff's father had a different take. He spent six years trying to comprehend Jeff's homosexuality. He never told Jeff it didn't matter. He said, "I don't hate you. I just don't understand it. I never will." His dad had been in the military when being gay meant suffering beatings while superiors turned their heads,

At age fifteen, Jeff began attending the Back Mountain Harvest Assembly Church, pastored by Rob Coscia. Jeff liked the man, opened up to him, turned to him for help in accepting himself for who he was. But the pastor believed that if a person didn't want to be gay, they didn't have to be gay and he told Jeff that with God's help, he could change. As Jeff's understanding of God strengthened, his displeasure with being homosexual grew.

Coscia told Jeff that he could help him rid his body of homosexuality and Jeff tried very hard to believe him. "I don't think God's plan was homosexuality in any way," Coscia told him after Jeff expressed a desire to deny his sexual orientation. "It's not like race, like you're born Caucasian or African-American. I let him know the he was not an aberration or a terrible person and God can do something about it."

Yet for all the spiritual guidance that came from Pastor Coscia, his inability to convert to a heterosexual was to Jeff just another form of failure. "Something's wrong with me, but I don't want to admit it," he wrote in his journal. "I'm sorry I ever labeled myself as gay. Now it's too hard to escape. I know if I start now at this young age I can become the man I'm supposed to be. The man that feels right. The man that has a family. But I want that with another man."

Jeff swallowed a large amount of extra-strength painkillers at age 13, but threw them up later. "He had a lot of anger, but most of it came from himself, and being gay and not being able to do anything about it," his mother said. "My son thought I was a hard-ass," his father said. "You have your good days and your bad days. What father and son don't see eye to eye sometimes? Yeah, I would have loved to have seen my son get married and have kids." But Jeff felt that if his father couldn't accept who he was, how could anyone else.

When he was in seventh grade, Jeff dated Amanda Maneval. They went to dances and their photo albums were filled with pictures of them. But Jeff confided to her that he was homosexual and the two stopped dating, although they remained friends.

Jeff fell in love with Shawn Bublo, a young man he had met at an after-care program for troubled kids when he was thirteen. After splitting up with Amanda, Jeff and Shawn entered into Jeff's only attempt at a gay relationship. The pair dated for two years, until Jeff was sixteen. "After two years we weren't the same people," Shawn said. "He stopped going to church. He started getting mean and upset a lot." The two remained friends, however, and it was no secret that Jeff still loved Shawn.

At age seventeen, his parents knocked down Jeff's bedroom door and found him laying on the floor, unconscious and mumbling incoherently. He had taken a handful of pills and barricaded himself in his room. He was rushed to Wilkes-Barre General Hospital, where doctors pumped his stomach. They saved his life. His suicide note read, "Please understand why I chose to die. I have suffered way too much. I would have suffered the rest of my life, so I had no choice at all...No matter what, no one could have helped. I was still gay and no one could change it."

The last two years of his life saw changes in Jeff. In an effort to make new friends, he took up using marijuana, drinking, and hanging out with new people. It didn't help. He still felt alone in a world where he wasn't accepted for who he was.

Jeff's poetry and journal became filled with obvious references to taking his own life. They were suicide notes written in short, broken sentences and grim stanzas. "Take away the pain, the tears, the longing and the fears." A journal entry on May 16th read, "Wouldn't it be nice to have someone miss me..."

Soon after that entry, Jeff visited his friend Shawn. He still had Shawn's picture on the TV in his bedroom. The two ran some errands. Shawn was the last person to see Jeff alive.

After Jeff's death, his tragic end left friends and family still struggling for answers. His minister said, "Hopefully God used me to show Jeff God's unconditional love. I just wish it didn't have to come out this way."

Shawn keeps pictures of him and Jeff on his computer to remember the fun they had as lovers and friends. "I don't have as much fun with anyone else. I don't even like clubs anymore. When I go, I just stand around and I'm bored. I just wish that somehow I could have helped him not be so down and out all the time."

Amanda says she hopes to pay tribute to her lost friend by giving her first son the middle name of Jeffrey. "We were so good together, as friends and as a couple. There was such a strong bond."

To Jeff's mother, "It's a devastating nightmare. He was a kind and compassionate person. I know how he died, but I'll never know why."

Jeff's father is filled with regrets. He knows Jeff wasn't a bad person because he was gay, he just never told him. He bowed his chin to his chest to hide his tears. He lifted his head up to reveal his red, watery eyes. "I just really miss him. At Jeff's funeral the minister tried to talk to me. I said 'I don't think I believe in God right now. I feel like He let me down.'"

This article doesn't contain pictures. It doesn't need to. The pictures of what happened to Jeffrey Price are there for all to see. It was a death that shouldn't have happened. One that is all too familiar to most gay people.

I thank Kris Wernowsky of the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader for giving birth to this article. I'd also like to thank Jeff's friend Joe, who wrote to me after seeing this story on another site, for sending me the picture of Jeff shown in this article.

This is something every minister, priest, and pastor should think about before telling a young gay person that they can change their sexuality, that they weren't born that way. It's also something every straight person, especially parents of gay children, needs to understand so they can stop berating them about who they are. Gay teens, like any kids, respond to uplifting messages - not to put-downs that make them feel like outcasts in society.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaiming Jeff's parents or his minister for Jeff's death. That was a choice, however desperate, that Jeff made himself. My point is that if you continue to tell a person they are wrong in who they are, tell them they are unacceptable in life as they are and give them no option but to change the unchangeable, sooner or later they will believe you.

How many gay sons and daughters have to die before people will accept them for who they are and treat them like regular human beings?

2005-06-12T12:03:00.000-07:00

THE TRUTH ABOUT GAY COUPLES

When you think of a lesbian or gay person, what do you picture in your mind?
When you use the words "gay lifestyle" what is it that you're really saying?

Unfortunately, when right wing Christians think of lesbian or gay people, this is what they see:

Instead of this:

And when those same people talk about the "gay lifestyle," this is what they're talking about:

Instead of this:

I apologize for the graphic presentation, but it's the truth. We're not people to them, we're the images you see above. This is the reason that new education secretary Margaret Spellings, in her letter to PBS concerning the "Postcards From Buster" that featured a child of a lesbian couple in Vermont, said, "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode." What's worse is they will fight to the end to make sure that most Americans keep those images in the forefront of their minds when they think about homosexual people.

When Joe and Anna Redstate think about homosexual couples marrying, these are the images they conjure up. Is it any wonder that they think it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed?

I'm not saying that there aren't gays that live like that, but they're in the same minority as heterosexuals who live much the same way. Ordinary people need to understand being homosexual is not about sex. It's about living lives very similar to their own. But the Christina right won't allow us to tell our story. They know what will happen if ordinary people replace those scary images with images like this:

This is the Riesner/Pike family that would have appeared on the discarded episode of "Buster." The family was in the background as the film concentrated on 11 year old Emma Riesner (top left). The show was meant to teach children about where maple sugar comes from, but that's not how it was portrayed by the religious right. Nor did any of the hundreds of articles that appeared about the show carry the above picture. Neither the right nor the press wants to show the truth about gay families. They look too normal.

Finally, how do you think 11 year old Emma felt about her show being canceled? Put yourself into her shoes for a minute. You know how kids anticipate and how they can't wait for things. Imagine for a minute how this destroyed her world. Would you care to hear it in her own words?

"I was pretty upset when the show was canceled, because I was very excited about it," Emma said in a recent telephone interview from her home in Vermont. "I know some people don't like gays and lesbians because they think they are bad people. That's just a stereotype and it's kind of hurtful. I don't think people should think of us as very different. We are just the same except we have two moms."

This is what the right is doing to our families. And what did president Bush say about his education secretary's remarks concerning showing a lesbian family on television? "Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman." Yet experts agree that there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples fare any worse than those raised in more traditional households.

But that hasn't stopped right wing legislators from spewing forth their anti-gay marriage propaganda and formulating bills to outlaw the adoption of children in states across the country.

It makes me sick.

2005-06-11T13:41:00.000-07:00

Fruit Flies and Choice

For all of you right wing wackos that think being gay is a choice, I have some conclusive news for you. You're wrong. But then, we knew that all along, didn't we? And since it's not a choice, it's not a sin. And since it's not a sin, who's been sinning all along calling us abominations, pushing their gay kids to suicide, beating and killing gays, taking our jobs away, not allowing us to marry or adopt, keeping books about us out of school libraries, not allowing schools to teach the truth that being gay is no different than being straight? Yeah who? Any of it sound like you?

Well, feast your right wing gay is a choice eyes on THIS:
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune Published: June 3, 2005
When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants.

In a series of experiments, the researchers found that females given the male variant of the gene acted exactly like males in courtship, madly pursuing other females. Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.

"We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. "It's very surprising."

"What it tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs, just like the morphologic development of an organ or a nose."

The results are certain to prove influential in debates about whether genes or environment determine who we are, how we act and, especially, our sexual orientation, although it is not clear now if there is a similar master sexual gene for humans.

Still, experts said they were both awed and shocked by the findings. "The results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work," said Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."

He added: "I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened. But humans are complicated. With the flies we can see in a simple and elegant way how a gene can influence and determine behavior."

The finding supports scientific evidence accumulating over the past decade that sexual orientation may be innately programmed into the brains of men and women. Equally intriguing, the researchers say, is the possibility that a number of behaviors - hitting back when feeling threatened, fleeing when scared or laughing when amused - may also be programmed into human brains, a product of genetic heritage.

"This is a first - a superb demonstration that a single gene can serve as a switch for complex behaviors," said Dr. Gero Miesenboeck, a professor of cell biology at Yale.

Dr. Dickson, the lead author, said he ran intothe laboratory when an assistant called him on a Sunday night with the results. "This really makes you think about how much of our behavior, perhaps especially sexual behaviors, has a strong genetic component," he said.

All the researchers cautioned that any of these wired behaviors set by master genes willprobably be modified by experience. Though male fruit flies are programmed to pursue females, Dr. Dickson said, those that are frequently rejected over time become less aggressive in their mating behavior.

When a normal male fruit fly is introduced to a virgin female, they almost immediately begin foreplay and then copulate for 20 minutes. In fact, Dr. Dickson and his co-author, Dr. Ebru Demir of the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, specifically chose to look for the genetic basis of fly sexual behavior precisely because it seemed so strong and instinctive and, therefore, predictable.

Scientists have known for several years that the master sexual gene, known as fru, was central to mating, coordinating a network of neurons that were involved in the male fly's courtship ritual. Last year, Dr. Bruce Baker of Stanford University discovered that the mating circuit controlled by the gene involved 60 nerve cells and that if any of these were damaged or destroyed by the scientists, the animal could not mate properly. Both male and female flies have the same genetic material as well as the neural circuitry required for the mating ritual, but different parts of the genes are turned on in the two sexes. But no one dreamed that simply activating the normally dormant male portion of the gene in a female fly could cause a genetic female to display the whole elaborate panoply of male fruit fly foreplay.

I'm sure you bastions of faith will poo-poo this and cling steadfastly to your incorrect beliefs saying, "It hasn't been proven in humans yet." But deep in your hearts you know that God is a God of order - not disorder, and what is true about the genetic workings of fruit flys is also true about the genetic workings of humans.

Hopefully this will put to rest the idea that being gay is a choice, a sin, a sickness, or whatever other crazy ideas these fanatics have had in the past. Being gay is a sexual orientation, set at birth, just like being heterosexual.

Let it sink in!!

2005-06-10T12:48:00.000-07:00

Middle Class Red White and Blues

...Back to when the poor were poor and the rich were rich
And you felt so damn secure just knowing which were which…

I’ve never been wealthy
Just simple trailer trash
Eking out a life
Full of hopes and dreams

There was a time
I had a good job
Money in the bank
Looking forward to college

But times they were a’changin
Job is long gone
Can’t find nothing nowhere
That pays anything

Money has vanished too
Bank account drained clean
Can’t even cloak myself
In the relief of bankruptcy

Scored high on SATs
Almost qualified for a pell grant
But came in just over the line
School won’t accept me anyway

They picked up my car
Cleaned out my apartment
A good thing I guess
Nothing left to take

I still got my friends
All in the same boat
Nothing from nothing
Leaves nothing

Now I just sit back
On my ever widening ass
Wondering whatever happened
To the good ol’ Middle Class

2005-06-09T13:18:00.000-07:00

Gay Marriage - Has Anything Changed?

Here we are, one year after gay marriage was made legal in Massachusetts. Has anything changed? Did traditional marriage become corrupted as right wing Christians predicted it would? Is there some kind of way to keep score concerning the issues?

Well, yes, we can keep score. The following are the twelve reasons the religious right gives for outlawing gay and lesbian marriage in the United States. Let's see if any of them have been weakened by one year of homosexual marriage:

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

- Straight people have come to see that their gay friends who've married are little different then their straight neighbors who've married. This is underscoring the fact that being gay is perfectly natural. Bruce Bagemihl documents over 450 animal species that reflect homosexual behavior in his book, "Biological Exuberance." God made homosexuality natural in nature and humans are a part of God's creation of nature.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

- One of the first things people notice about gay couples is that there are children involved. They know that these children are now protected by civil law in the same way their own children are, and it makes them feel better about allowing gays to marry.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

- Being legally married has allowed couples to come out as never before. Women feel free to speak about their "wives" at work and so on. Children of gay couples don't feel like outcasts in their schools any longer. It has become quite obvious that the children raised by gay parents don't become gay. Also, the stigma for straight parents who have gay sons or daughters has become less intense.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful.

- This has been proved totally false. Not one straight couple in Massachusetts has reported they no longer want to marry anymore since gay marriage has become legal. There were over 36,000 heterosexual marriages in the state this year.
Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all.

- This is historically incorrect. At one time, women were considered property, blacks couldn't marry whites, and divorce was illegal. The great conversation concerning marriage that has taken place has opened the eyes of many people, leading to an understanding that statements like this are silly.
Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts because the majority-elected legislatures more evenly express the will of the people.

- Again, the Great Conversation has enlightened people that we are governed by a representative democracy with checks and balances. A primary benefit of this form of government is that it helps protect minority rights. Protecting rights of the minority would never happen if that were left to the prejudiced whims of majority rule outside of our court system.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion.

- Massachusetts has shown that there are many independent churches that not only open their doors to gay people, but are willing to conduct marriage ceremonies for their gay members.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.

- This is another fear disproved by the new marriage law in Massachusetts. Although the new law has allowed many gays to feel safer coming out of the closet, not one straight person has applauded the law and decided to become gay. People are learning it doesn't work that way.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets.

- The "slippery slope" argument. Not one person in Massachusetts has filed for a marriage certificate in order to marry a relative, an animal, or a multitude of wives.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.

- With more and more couples coming out in Massachusetts, straights are gaining a better perspective on how gay families raise their children. It's been nationally noted that gays are just as successful in raising kids as straight couples are and in some cases, moreso.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms.

- This argument has really blown up in the faces of those who propose it. The foundation of society in Massachusetts hasn't changed an iota since gays have been allowed to marry.
Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name, therefore not sullying traditional marriage.

- Equal but unequal has long been a standard of people who are uncomfortable with change. Massachusetts has proven that the costly action of starting up Civil Unions when the marriage system is already in place. Especially when marriage, by any other name, is exactly the same.

Yes, the Massachusetts Gay Marriage Law has provoked a backlash by the religious right. People who bought into their arguments are now seeing that they didn't hold water. This will continue to happen as time passes. Connecticut has passed a Civil Union law which will take effect in October. New York and California are close to legalizing full gay marriage. The faster it happens, the sooner more and more Americans will see that marriage is under no threat what-so-ever by allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

Oh, if you argue that one year isn't enough to prove all this, how about the 5 YEARS in Vermont? You'd be surprised at the number of institutions and churchs that now support gay marriage.

Stay tuned.

2005-03-04T18:23:00.000-07:00

Activist Judges are Legislating From the Bench!

“We did not ask for this fight. This fight was forced upon us by those who are seeking to redefine marriage in court by cozying up to activist judges. Activist judges liberally read their own thoughts and views into constitutions in order to ‘find’ rights which don’t exist. The people have a right to be heard through a referendum. A referendum gives the people the opportunity to speak clearly through their Constitution, not only to legislators and governors, but also to judges.”

Senator Jeff Miller (R-Cleveland)

"If activist judges don't stop challenging the Defense of Marriage Act that protects states from being compelled to recognize gay marriage, I'll push for passage of a constitutional gay marriage ban."

Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist

“Same-sex marriage should not be imposed on this country by a handful of activists and judges. The most egregious act of activist judges is making a ruling that creates law. Judicial action of that nature needs to be corrected and an amendment would prevent judges from making law with regard to gay marriage. It’s not their province to make that kind of law,”

Reps. Warde Nichols (R) and Andy Biggs, (R)

"Many think this isn't enough, because of the activist judges legislating new laws instead of interpreting them."

A Call to Arms

The term "activist judge" is always applied to any judge who rules in favor of gay marriage. The public thinks that only these activist judges see any reason to proclaim that same-sex marriage is Constitutional and should therefore be legal.

The truth is, these people know that when gay marriage issues hit the courts, and the fear the Supreme Court more than any, it will be found to be beneficial, not harmful and the ultimate ruling would support marriage between homosexual people. That fear is what drives them toward changing their State Constitutions. The fear is drummed up by the Republican Party, who now is sure that if they throw the scare of supporting gay marriage in the face of any issue, the people will support them, elect them, and approve of their policies no matter how harmful those policies might be to the people doing the voting.

But are the charges true? Are judges legislating new laws instead of interpreting laws already on the books? Let's let the record speak for itself. All three recent decisions concerning gay marriage spoke to this point. Once again, let's look at the decision in the New York City case by Justice Doris Ling-Cohan:

Defendant and amici argue that, if plaintiffs and other same-sex couples are to be allowed to enter into civil marriages, such decision should be made by the Legislature, rather than by the courts. This “legislature deference” argument was similarly used to urge the United States Supreme Court to uphold racial classifications in marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

As this Court noted in its August 20, 2004 decision on a previous motion in this case, it is clear that the courts have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of statutes. Hernandez v. Robles, supra. "The role of the judiciary is to enforce statutes and to rule on challenges to their constitutionality either on their face, or as applied in accordance with their provisions." Benson Realty Corp. v. Beame, 50 NY2d 994, 996 (1980), appeal dismissed sub nom Benson Realty Corp v. Koch, 449 US 1119 (1981). As the New York Court of Appeals has recently reiterated: “[t]he Court ... plays a crucial and necessary function in our system of checks and balances. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to safeguard the rights afforded under our State Constitution.”

Here is how the opinion in the Massachusetts Goodridge case viewed the action of the court:

In ruling that the Commonwealth could not do so, the court observed that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." It reaches its conclusion, the court said, giving "full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth." The Commonwealth, the court ruled, "has failed to identify any constitutionality adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." The court affirmed that it owes "great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues." Where, as here, the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it is the "traditional and settled role" of courts to decide the constitutional question. The "marriage ban" the court held, "works a deep and scarring hardship" on same-sex families "for no rational reason." It prevents children of same-sex couples "from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."' "It cannot be rational under our laws," the court held, "to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits" because of their parents' sexual orientation."

If total deference to the Legislature were the case, the judiciary would be stripped of its constitutional authority to decide challenges to statutes pertaining to marriage, child rearing, and family relationships, and, conceivably, unconstitutional laws that provided for the forced sterilization of habitual criminals; prohibited miscegenation; required court approval for the marriage of persons with child support obligations; compelled a pregnant unmarried minor to obtain the consent of both parents before undergoing an abortion; and made sodomy a criminal offense, to name just a few, would stand. Indeed, every State court that has recently considered the issue we decide today has exercised its duty in the same way, by carefully scrutinizing the statutory ban on same-sex marriages in light of relevant State constitutional provisions. See Brause vs. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562CJ (Alaska Super.Ct., Feb. 27, 1998) (concluding marriage statute violated right to privacy provision in Alaska Constitution) (superseded by constitutional amendment, art. I, § 25 of the Constitution of Alaska); Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 571-580 (1993) (concluding marriage statute implicated Hawaii Constitution's equal
protection clause; remanding case to lower court for further proceedings); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 197-198 (1999) (concluding marriage statute violated Vermont Constitution's common benefits clause). But see Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz.Ct.App.2003) (marriage statute does not violate liberty interests under either Federal or Arizona Constitution). See also Halpern v. Toronto (City), 172 O.A.C. 276 (2003) (concluding marriage statute violated equal protection provisions of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms); Eagle Canada, Inc. v. Canada (Attorney Gen.), 13 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1 (2003) (same).

Finally, there's the King County decision in Washington State:

It is the sworn task of the courts both to vigorously defend the equal rights of all individuals and also to sedulously support the laws duly enacted by the people through their representatives.

In our democracy, we are all governed by laws that are enacted by the people through their elected representatives. Those laws should effectuate the goals of society as seen by the majority of citizens. While the courts have a key role to play in seeing that these laws are fairly and consistently applied, the courts generally do not sit in judgment of the laws themselves.

When the court is asked to sit in judgment of a law, it is not to consider whether, in its view, the law is wise or consistent with sound policy. These are matters for the people and their chosen legislators to weigh. The court’s role is limited to holding the challenged law up to the state and federal constitutions – the foundations of our rule of law – to see if it satisfies the constitutional requirements. Rather than its own personal preferences, the court is required to apply a consistent, principled and reasoned analysis in evaluating the statute’s constitutionality. Through this brilliant design, the constitutions empower the courts to ensure both that no group is singled out for special privileges and also that no minority is deprived of rights to which its members should be entitled. At the same time, respect for democratic lawmaking is maintained.

Proper respect for the separation of powers requires that, as to most laws subjected to challenge, the court will show great deference to the legislature. In most such cases, the court applies what is called “rational basis” review. Under this type of review, a statute will be found constitutional if it can be said that it is rationally related to a legitimate state goal or purpose.

Some challenged laws, however, call for what is called a “heightened scrutiny” by the courts. When the statute in question burdens a “fundamental right” or a “suspect class”, it must pass a more rigorous test in order to satisfy the constitutions. The goal or purpose being sought must be deemed a “compelling state interest” and the means implemented toward that goal must be “narrowly tailored” toward that end.

There are a couple different potential remedies that flow from the constitutional violations found by this Court and there is one overarching practicality. That practical consideration is that all parties have stipulated that review of this case by the State Supreme Court will occur and be expeditiously pursued. That body will, as it should, write indelibly on the same slate on which this Court has been scratching. Whether it agrees with some, all or none of what this Court has said, there can be no doubt that the Supreme Court will clearly articulate to the parties, to the legislature and to the public what should next occur. It also may well be that during the pendency of this appellate review, the legislature will enact some changes in the laws that could impact the Supreme Court’s analysis. Since these are issues purely of law, that circumstance should not necessitate a remand without issuance of some definitive high court ruling.

Now does this sound like activism on the part of any of these three courts? Are they legislating from the bench? Or are the doing their job and viewing arguements in the light of mandated State and Constitutional law? When one takes the actual time to read through these three decisions, the answer becomes obvious.

The exact same whining and name calling took place during the period between the Perez decision in 1948 and the final Supreme Court ruling on interracial marriage, Loving v Virginia, in 1967. In fact, almost the exact same arguments were used and almost the exact same states had anti-miscegenation laws as have anti-gay marriage laws today. Is it any wonder that some of these politicians want to legislate laws making it illegal for the courts to consider cases involving gay marriage?

Truth is, they know what's going to happen.

2005-02-28T23:50:00.000-07:00

The purpose of marriage is the procreation of children.

Here's what the opposition has to say about children and gay marriage:

"A same-sex union is not a physical union that transmits human life, producing children. A same-sex union is not the joining of two complementary natures that complete each other. Simply stated, a same sex union is not marriage. The idea that homosexuals can create same sex 'marriage' through their individual choice is false."

On Same Sex Marriage

"The understanding in our society is that the heterosexual, marriage-based family arises from respect for the fact that the relationship between man and woman existed in the context of a commitment to procreation, as ordained by Almighty God. That commitment to procreation then led to a marriage institution that entailed upon the man and the woman certain responsibilities that transcended their feelings — their gratifications, their joy or sorrow in the marriage, once they had made their commitment to the Constitution."

Marriagedebate.com

"The truth is that the original and most basic reason for the existence of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children. It is an indisputable biological fact, of course, that both a mother and a father are required to bring a child into the world. More and more studies are being produced showing that children grow up healthier, better adjusted and more likely to succeed in life if they grow up with both a mother and a father."

Gay Marriage Laws Provoke Thought About Reason For Bond

"Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship."

Talking Points: Why Homosexual Marriage Is Wrong

The fact that homosexuals can't have children in the "natural" sense has long been one of the chief agreement against allowing same-sex couples to marry. The Massachusetts State Supreme Court in the case of Hillary Goodridge & others v. Department of Public Health & another, handled this argument in a way that leaves little doubt about the legality of this opinion. In fact, two of specifically listed "facts" were used by the opposition as to why Massachusetts should not allow gays to marry concerned procreation and the raising of children. These included:

(1) Marriage provides a "favorable setting for procreation."

(2) Marriage ensures the optimal setting for child rearing, which the department defines as "a two-parent family with one parent of each sex."

Below is Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall's opinion for the majority that meets these two arguments squarely:

Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family. General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) ("The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity"). [FN22] People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry. See G.L. c. 207, § 28A. While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage. [FN23]

Moreover, the Commonwealth affirmatively facilitates bringing children into a family regardless of whether the intended parent is married or unmarried, whether the child is adopted or born into a family, whether assistive technology was used to conceive the child, and whether the parent or her partner is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. [FN24] If procreation were a necessary component of civil marriage, our statutes would draw a tighter circle around the permissible bounds of nonmarital child bearing and the creation of families by noncoital means. The attempt to isolate procreation as "the source of a fundamental right to marry," post at (Cordy, J., dissenting), overlooks the integrated way in which courts have examined the complex and overlapping realms of personal autonomy, marriage, family life, and child rearing. Our jurisprudence recognizes that, in these nuanced and fundamentally private areas of life, such a narrow focus is inappropriate.

The "marriage is procreation" argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage. Like "Amendment 2" to the Constitution of Colorado, which effectively denied homosexual persons equality under the law and full access to the political process, the marriage restriction impermissibly "identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board." Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996). In so doing, the State's action confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that samesex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect. [FN25]

The department's first stated rationale, equating marriage with unassisted heterosexual procreation, shades imperceptibly into its second: that confining marriage to opposite-sex couples ensures that children are raised in the "optimal" setting. Protecting the welfare ofchildren is a paramount State policy. Restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, however, cannot plausibly further this policy. "The demographic changes of the past century make it difficult to speak of an average American family. The composition of families varies greatly from household to household." Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57, 63 (2000).

Massachusetts has responded supportively to "the changing realities of the American family," id. at 64, and has moved vigorously to strengthen the modern family in its many variations. See, e.g., GL c. 209C (paternity statute); GL c. 119, § 39D (grandparent visitation statute); Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649 (2002), cert. denied, 537 US 1189 (2003) (same); E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824, cert. denied, 528 US 1005 (1999) (de facto parent); Youmans v. Ramos, 429 Mass. 774, 782 (1999) (same); and Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205 (1993) (coparent adoption). Moreover, we have repudiated the common-law power of the State to provide varying levels of protection to children based on the circumstances of birth. See GL c. 209C (paternity statute); Powers v. Wilkinson, 399 Mass. 650, 661 (1987) ("Ours is an era in which logic and compassion have impelled the law toward unburdening children from the stigma and the disadvantages heretofore attendant upon the status of illegitimacy"). The "best interests of the child" standard does not turn on a parent's sexual orientation or marital status. See e.g., Doe v. Doe, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 499, 503 (1983) (parent's sexual orientation insufficient ground to deny custody of child in divorce action). See also E.N.O. v. L.M.M., supra at 829-830 (best interests of child determined by considering child's relationship with biological and de facto same-sex parents); Silvia v. Silvia, 9 Mass.App.Ct. 339, 341 & n. 3 (1980) (collecting support and custody statutes containing no gender distinction).

The department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage topeople of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children. There is thus no rational relationship between the marriage statute and the Commonwealth's proffered goal of protecting the "optimal" child rearing unit. Moreover, the department readily concedes that people in same-sex couples may be "excellent" parents. These couples (including four of the plaintiff couples) have children for the reasons others do--to love them, to care for them, to nurture them. But the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws.

While establishing the parentage of children as soon as possible is crucial to the safety and welfare of children, see ., 435 Mass. 285, 292 (2001), same-sex couples must undergo the sometimes lengthy and intrusive process of second-parent adoption to establish their joint parentage. While the enhanced income provided by marital benefits is an important source of security and stability for married couples and their children, those benefits are denied to families headed by same-sex couples. See, e.g., note 6, supra. While the laws of divorce provide clear and reasonably predictable guidelines for child support, child custody, and property division on dissolution of a marriage, same-sex couples who dissolve their relationships find themselves and their children in the highly unpredictable terrain of equity jurisdiction. See E.N.O. v. L.M.M., Supra. Given the wide range of public benefits reserved only for married couples, we do not credit the department's contention that the absence of access to civil marriage amounts to little more than an inconvenience to same-sex couples and their children. Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of "a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized." Post at (Cordy, J., dissenting). [FN26]

The preferential treatment of civil marriage reflects the Legislature's conclusion that marriage "is the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children" precisely because it "encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow." Post at (Cordy, J., dissenting).

In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation.

The case of Heather Anderson and Leslie Christian; et al., v. King County, et al., heard in the Superior Court of Washington State for King County also ruled against the idea that marriage is about raising children. In his opinion, Justice William L. Downing had this to say:

The link between civil marriage and procreation is not what it was when the laws prohibited both adultery and ready access to contraception. Then, it could well be said that love, marriage and baby carriage would come in predictable sequence. The laws of today recognize the reality that a substantial amount of procreation occurs outside ofthe marital relationship. See, R.C.W. 26.26, the Uniform Parentage Act. Of course the laws never have placed a requirement on marriage that the parties procreate nor do they prohibit from marriage those who are unable or disinclined to procreate. Many families today are created through adoption, the foster parent system and assisted reproduction technologies. This last point, by the way, is well illustrated by some of the plaintiffs who, thanks to government recognition of the fact that their sexual orientation is no bar to good parenting, are presently able to enjoy family lives with children.

The legal question is not whether heterosexual marriage is good for the replenishment of the species through procreation. It is. The precise question is whether barring committed same-sex couples from the benefits of the civil marriage laws somehow serves the interest of encouraging procreation. There is no logical way in which it does so.

Today the law and society fully recognize (as well they should) the value of children who join the human family by means of in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, egg donation or surrogacy or who join a new family by way of adoption. It rationally serves no state interest to harm certain of those children by devaluing the immediate families that they have joined.

State action to maintain and strengthen the institution of marriage for heterosexual couples is decidedly a means that is rationally related to promoting stable families and is something that is good for children. Again, the precise question before the Court, however, is whether not having the same state-supported relationship available as an option for homosexual couples furthers this same interest. In other words, would adding this benefit for the second group (and their children) injure that legitimate state interest in the support of families and the nurturance of children? Again, there is no logical way in which it would be so.

It is good for children to be raised in stable families with a father and a mother. There is not the slightest question about this. It is a situation to be encouraged by the state. But, can it be said that fewer children will have this stability because couples consisting of two men or two women are allowed to have a relationship that is state-sanctioned? There is no reasonable explanation for why this would be so. There is no reasonable expectation that, should such a legal result come to pass, married fathers and mothers will abdicate their parental responsibilities or young would-be parents will defect from the ranks of heterosexuals.

On the other hand, when one peers into the future, one circumstance is far more certain to occur. Many, many children are going to be raised in the homes of gay and lesbian partners. Present social trends will undoubtedly continue. Gay and lesbian couples will feel the human instinct to wish to raise children, they will have available either the supportive adoption laws or the technological means to begin raising a family and they will enjoy the increasing public acceptance of such families. All this is certain.

One, then, must try to envision two categories of future children. The first category consists of those whose heterosexual parents will either neglect them or never conceive them because same-sex marriage has been legalized. The second category is those children who will be raised in a home with same-sex adult partners and who would enjoy enhanced family stability and social adjustment if these adults were granted the benefits of civil marriage. The only reasonable conclusion is that the very real second category greatly outnumbers the first theoretical one. Therefore, the goal of nurturing and providing for the emotional wellbeing of children would be rationally served by allowing same-sex couples to marry; that same goal is impaired by prohibiting such marriages.

The above conclusion is inescapable when one looks objectively and dispassionately at the properly framed question. It is the same conclusion reached by the Vermont Supreme Court in 1999. “If anything, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal protections incident to marriage exposes their children to the precise risks that the State argues the marriage laws are designed to secure against.” Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 219, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999) (emphasis in original). It is the same conclusion reached by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003. “Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of ‘a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.’” Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 335, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003).

It has also been suggested that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage serves the interest of protecting children from the harms that may be caused by being raised in a non-traditional family. Although many may hold strong opinions on the subject, the fact is that there are no scientifically valid studies tending to establish a negative impact on the adjustment of children raised by an intact same-sex couple as compared with those raised by an intact opposite-sex couple. The offered studies, anecdotal experiences and opinions regarding children from broken homes or children raised by a single parent have no logical relevance. Unlike the documented impact of children’s exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse in the homes of lawfully married heterosexual couples, as to children raised by intact same-sex couples there is no science, only questionable assumptions based on stereotypes.

The Court concludes that the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest.

It is obviously invalid to assume that the basis of marriage or even sex is the procreation of children. I couldn't name one person who married his wife or husband for the sole reason of having children. Marriage is a relationship. People marry because they want to be in a committed relationship with the person of their choosing for the rest of their natural lives. Having children is a miraculous bonus.

Can you name a married heterosexual couple who married only because their parents or their community desired for them to commit to each other for life in order to raise a family in a healthy environment? Of course not. People just don't marry for those reasons.

Yet, people leave marriages, by divorce and even by murdering their children, in order to marry someone else who appeals to them. Those who've murdered their children, of course, are allowed to remarry even while in jail awaiting the death penalty as long as they divorced their previous mate. Such is the concern for children and the scantity of heterosexual marriage in some extreme cases. Yet no one is screaming to overturn the laws that allow this. To them, the committed marriage between to gays is much worse.

Once you get past the myths and falsehoods perpetrated by the Religious Right, it is obvious that courts have no other choice but to find the marriage between same-sex couples to be Constitutional.

2005-02-24T13:05:00.000-07:00

IS GAY MARRIAGE A RIGHT?

They call it, "The Defense of Marriage." Unfortunately, they pass off a lot of misinformation under that serious sounding heading. I'm going to take a few weeks and go over point by point the legal truth about this defense of marriage. I think it's important that we understand what they're talking about and they understand what the law states. We are, after all, a nation that prides itself on our system of law. The first topic to explore is:

No one has the right to marry whomever he wants.

No one has the right to marry whomever he wants. Gays can already get marriage licenses on exactly the same terms as anyone else. Everyone is equally barred from marrying another person who is under a certain age, or too closely related, or of the same gender, or already married to another. Sound reasons underlie all these requirements, which apply equally to everyone, male and female. Gays can already get marriage licenses on exactly the same terms as anyone else. Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Gays already have the liberty to live their lives as they choose, set up housekeeping, share income and expenses, make contracts and wills, and transfer property. What they are now demanding is respect and social standing for a lifestyle that others believe is immoral (like mixed-gender cohabiting).

-Why We Must Protect Marriage

As is often the case when dealing with leftists, once you cut through the rhetoric the actual logic of the situation rests firmly in the conservative’s position. First and foremost, gay marriage is not a “rights” issue. No one has the “right” to marry whomever he wants to marry. We can only marry one person who (until recently in Massachusetts) was required to be of the opposite sex. A person cannot marry inanimate objects, animals, children, or multiple people. A person cannot marry someone who is currently married to someone else.

- The Case Against Gay Marriage

Considering that millions of people every year in the United States marry the person of their choice, this argument seems almost senseless. No on is arguing about marrying your sister, brother, aunt, uncle, mother, father, animals, children, inanimate objects or multiple people. This is the "slippery slope" argument that I'll discuss at another time and place.

Suffice it to say that that few people in their right minds would even want to do that, so we'll limit the scope of this argument as it pertains to marriage between two gay people. You will find these comments quoted or paraphrased in many on-line discussions concerning the rights of gay men and women to marry whom they chose.

Is the conservative Christian attack correct? Is there nothing in the law that suggests that gays should be able to marry the person of their choice? The answer is yes.

In her decision in Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York, State Justice Doris J. Ling-Cohan had this to say, "The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the right to marry is a liberty right." She gives the following as evidence:

“Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. [cite omitted]... These matters involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833,851 (1992)

The following is how Justice Ling-Cohan follows up on the above point:

Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right toprivacy, extend to protect marriage. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the fundamental importance of marriage. As early as 1888, in Maynard v. Hill (125 US 190, 205, 211 [1888]), the Supreme Court stated that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

In 1923, the Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399 (1923), recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. Nineteen years later, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US at 541 (1942), it described marriage as “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” In 1967, the Loving Court recognized marriage as a fundamental right under the Constitution, striking down the state’s antimiscegenation statute: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men... Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” 388 US at 12 (quoting Skinner, supraat 541).

One decade later, in Zablocki v. Redhail, (434 US at 384 [1978]), the Court reaffirmed its holding in Loving, stating that “[a]lthough Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court has noted that marriage is a: “right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to a degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Griswold v. Conn., 381 US at 486 (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court has “long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cleveland Bd of Ed v. LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974); see also Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (quoting Griswold, supra). As stated by the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

Lawrence v.Texas, 539 US 558, 574 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US at 851). The Court further emphasized that “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.

As other States have also observed, the right to marry "is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference." Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass at 345, 798 NE2d at 970 (Greaney, J. concurring). "[I]t is a fundamental right of free men." Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal 2d at 714, 198 P2d at 19.

The second aspect of the fundamental right to marry, which is what this action concerns, is the right to choose whom one marries. The right to choose one's spouse "resides with the individual." See Loving, 388 US at 12 (freedom to marry embraces the choice to select a partner across racial lines which cannot be infringed by State);Perez, 32 Cal 2d 711, supra (same); Goodridge, 440 Mass 309, supra (freedom to marry person of same sex). "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice..." Goodridge, 440 Mass at 227, 798 NE2d at 958. See also Perez, 32 Cal 2d at 715, 198 P2d at 19 ("right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice"); Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743*6 (Alaska Super)(deciding whom to marry is a fundamental right, whether decision results in traditional or nontraditional choice), superseded by Alaska Const Art 1, § 25 (effective Jan. 3, 1999) (providing that a valid marriage "may exist only between one man and one woman").

Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to “rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388.

There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry: Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay couples the right to marry.

Know the law. It's the only protection we have.

2005-02-01T13:56:00.000-07:00

WHO'S RUNNING OUR COUNTRY?

Obviously, the most newsworthy events are happening in Iraq right now. The fact that they're voting is a big deal, no matter which political party you support.

target=_top>

But there's another, far more important event taking place in Washington D.C. at the moment. It has to do with who's running this country of ours. Now, you won't find this on CNN or even in the Washington Post or Boston Globe. But, if correct, start preparing yourself for some major league hard ball to be played not by the new Washington Nationals, but by the Bush administration and his loyal supporters, the fundamentalist Christian right.

The News Telegraph, an English source, broke the news today that "Conservative Christian leaders who played a key role in securing President George W Bush's re-election have given the White House an ultimatum over outlawing same-sex marriages." The New York Blade called it a "threat."

target=_top>

Wowza!! It takes real stones to issue an ultimatum to or threaten the president of the United States! You know, I actually thought that Bush was running the country. It seems I might be wrong. It seems that unelected people can force our president to do whatever they want, seperation of church and state be dammned. Of course, the letter wasn't sent to Bush, it was sent to Rove, which speaks volumns in itself.

I could be the most conservative Republican on record, and I'd still be cheesed off by that statement. Issue the president an ultimatum? That takes some getting used to.

target=_top>

It seems the Arlington Group, a bunch of powerful right wing religious bigots that include our favorite whackos, James Dobson and his Focus on the Family people, Don Wildman of the American Family Association, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell in their ranks, gagged up a hairball when Bush said, "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously."

Dobson is quoted as responding, "If Republicans do what they've done in the past, which is say, 'Thanks so much for putting us in power: now we don't want to talk to you any more', they will pay a serious price."

Dem's fightin' words my friend. What is the Arlington Group up to? "We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the President is approaching the difficult issue of social security privatisation, where the public is deeply divided, and the marriage issue, where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the leaked letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatisation but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so, it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the President solely because of this issue."

" target=_top>

Gary Bauer, the president of the conservative group American Values, told The Sunday Telegraph last week: "Many of us did a great deal to help with President Bush's re-election. One of the reasons we could motivate so many people was because of his strong stance on same-sex marriage. If the White House wants us to rally our troops like they need for social security reform, a subject on which our people are very divided, that is going to be very difficult if the President does not come out strongly in favour of the constitutional amendment."

According to the New York Times, the letter chastised the president for taking, "a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda” and expressed concern that Bush stated in an interview shortly before the election that he “appeared to endorse civil unions” for same-sex couples.

" target=_top>

The new constitutional amendment being proposed will have none of that. The Bolder Daily Camera reports, "The amendments would not simply ban gay marriage. They also would prohibit conferring the 'legal incidents thereof' on 'any union other than the union of a man and woman.' In other words, gay people not only could not 'marry' — which polls suggest a majority of Americans support — but they could not enter intolegal arrangements conferring rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, adoption, and many others available to most Americans. President Bush doesn't support that, and neither does a majority of Americans, polls show."

" target=_top>

So what effect will the threat to withhold support for Bush's plan to privatize Social Security have on the White House? One wonders. The deeper you get into the Right Wing Christian effort to implement their bigotry into the Constitution of this country, the sicker people get of their arguments. Many Repubo supporters are beginning to realize just how much control the Right Wing religious fanatics have over our country. Fortunately, the leaders of these fanatics don't realize the compromises and wheeling and dealing that is a necessary part of working with Congress. They also fail to realize the diversity of the American population. Because they take all or nothing at all stances with their primary issues like abortion and marriage, they will lose their fight until they become so hateful and critical that no one will stand with them.

This is what happens when denying rights to citizens instead of protecting them is seen as a viable election strategy. Abe Lincoln is rolling in his grave.

2005-01-28T13:32:00.000-07:00

THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN!

Postcards from Buster is a PBS cartoon series part animation, part live, featuring an 8 year old rabbit, Buster, who travels around the country with his father, an airline pilot. The show profiles life inside different kinds of families. In the past there have been episodes featuring children who live with grandparents, Mulsim children, Mormon children, and children of evangelical Christians.

target=_top>

But an episode entitled "Sugartime" has incurred the wrath of newly appointed Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, because it features Buster visiting the children of a Vermont family that runs a dairy farm and produces maple syrup. The parents are a lesbian couple, viewed in the background of the story, which is about the kids. This was enough to compel Spellings to fire off a letter to PBS regarding her concern over the material being used in this publicly funded broadcast.

" target=_top>

In her letter to PBS, Secretary Spellings wrote, "Congress' and the Department's purpose in funding this programming certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children, particularly through the powerful and intimate medium of television." The secretary asked for a refund of public funding "in the interest of avoiding embroiling the Ready-to-Learn program in a controversy that will only hurt" it. Finally, she stated, "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode."

The Concerned Woman For America (CWA) was quick to defend Secretary Spellings. Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture and Family institute said, "Parents don't want their children homosexualized in the name of 'education.' Mrs. Spellings has given notice that left-wing lobbies will have to find other ways to peddle their pansexual propaganda. Let's hope that other leaders in federal and state agencies find a backbone thanks to her courageous example."

In contrast, Jeanne Hopkins, spokesperson for WGBH, the show's producer, said, "The show's goal is to reflect the lives of American kids. It is not meant to be political. The lesbian couples are in the background. The program is not about these moms or gay couples. The family is the backdrop. One mom is in the kitchen, making a grocery list. Another mom says, 'Hi.' Later they have a meal together with some friends. Most of the time, Buster is with the kids."

" target=_top>

The Human Rights Campaign was irate at Secretary Spellings' remarks. Director Winnie Stachelberg said, "The Secretary's first act in office denies children an education about the diversity of American Families. The 'subject matter' is innocuous, but the Secretary's implication that teaching children about the reality of American life is cause for fear is harmful. Same-sex couples are raising children in almost every county in the nation. These families deserve just as much dignity and respect as their neighbors, and the children of America shouldn't be denied the reality of our lives."

Stachelberg went on to say, "Teaching children about respect for differences promotes tolerance of their fellow human beings. Those are the values our children should be learning. Instead, Secretary Spellings is sending the message that differences should concealed. This creates a dangerous environment for children's growth."

PBS has decided not to distribute the "Sugartime" episode but will provide it to any affiliate that asks for it. The question is, does "Sugartime" violate the grant under which WGBH receives federal funding?

The grant specifies the programs "should be designed to appeal to all of America's children by providing them with content and characters with which they can identify. Diversity will be incorporated into the fabric of the series to help children understand and respect differences and learn to live in a multicultural society."

Brigid Sullivan, vice president for children's programming at WGHB, said, "This asked for a project on diversity to all of America's children, Not to present a make-believe world of diversity but a real world. We want to reflect all of America's children. This is not about their parents."

The point is, does a normal, everyday couple raising their children in Vermont represent a threat to children of other families? If so, why haven't they been arrested and put in jail? If not, what's the harm in showing others that families such as this exist? The words 'gay' or 'lesbian' are NOT used anywhere in the film. These people are clean, upstanding, taxpaying American citizens. People like anyone's neighbors. They don't have two heads. They don't run around naked. They don't eat dead, burnt bodies. They're an average American couple living on an average American dairy farm. Yet our government doesn't want people to see that. Why? Think about it.

target=_top>

The more Americans realize gay couples are just like everyone else, the less they will agree with this administration's stance that gays and lesbians should be signaled out for exclusion in our society. It's as simple as that.

Frankly, I feel that Secretary Spellings should be disciplined for her remarks. And if you are a real American who appreciates the diversity in our country,and you stand for the equality of all, you should too.

The Boston Globe, in an editorial said it best. "To be great, this country must honestly accept its complex diversity and realize that there is nothing wrong with teaching children that human worth and human equality should not come with a list of exceptions." Odd that on the anniversary of Auschwitz, our government would want to speak out against the equality of all its citizens.

WGBH-TV in Boston will air the program on March 23rd.

2005-01-25T13:35:00.000-07:00

TOLERANCE ANYONE?

Once again Dr. James Dobson and his conservative group that runs Focus On The Family have jumped on the bandwagon of infinitesimal stupidity. You might remember Dobson assailing the children’s movie “Shark Tale” a short time ago. According to Dobson, Shark Tale has undertones that subscribe to the Gay/Lesbian agenda (whatever that is) and is an attempt by the gay movement to subvert Christian children by brainwashing their minds.

Dobson says the father shark was way too acceptable of the differences in his son’s life. The fact that the son was a vegetarian and liked to pretend he was a dolphin was just too much for the Bible-minded radio preacher. To Dobson, a shark being vegetarian is like a child saying they are homosexual. And obviously, the dolphin bit is way too close to cross-dressing for this maharishi of marriage and family values. Dobson tried to get the movie banned, but sanity prevailed and his tantrum was quickly forgotten by parents even of the right wing whacko variety. Some things are just too laughable to believe.

Well folks, Dobson’s at it again. This time the culprit is Sponge Bob Square Pants, if you can believe that. It seems the sponge with the big smile is appearing in a new music video by the We Are Family Foundation along with other famous cartoon characters like Barney, Blues Clues, Arthur, The Muppet Show, Little Mermaid, Madeline, Rugrats, Bob the Builder, Clifford the Big Dog, Sesame Street, Kim Possible, Lilo & Stitch, and Jimmie Neutron, all singing the famous disco hit We Are Family, written by Neil Rodgers, who created the video. According to Rodgers, the video was made to teach children about multiculturalism, which he feels gets to the root of being an American.

Despite the fact that the video has appeared on hundreds of television shows, Dobson reported at a black-tie dinner for President Bush that the Square Pants creators had enlisted the cartoon in a “pro-homosexual” video. The makers, Dobson said, were going to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a “tolerance pledge” that includes (among other things like race) tolerance for differences in “sexual identity.” In case you’re curious concerning what this pledge says, here it is:

“To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.”

What Dobson doesn’t tell you is that the pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is neither mentioned in the video and it’s only available on the group’s Web site. To show you the depth to which Dobson’s people have sunk, here’s how Paul Batura, spokesperson for Focus on Family, tried to spin their view on the video: “It’s a classic bait and switch. This video is an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids.” Diversity and tolerance it seems, have taken on new meaning for right wingers.

While it's true that many gays and lesbians think the sponge is way kewl, there is no truth whatsoever that they have attached any agenda to him other than to have some fun. Fun is what cartoons are about, no? Be it for kids or older folk.

Then there’s this from Ed Vitaglino, news editor for AFA Journal, a monthly publication of the American Family Association, “A short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality. The 'Tolerance Pledge,' for example, encourages signees to pledge respect for homosexuals and work against 'ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry.' Most Christians are now aware of what those code words mean. If you are a person who accepts the homosexual lifestyle, then you are tolerant. If you don't, then you are a bigot who is motivated by ignorance and hate."

An editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal on Friday reads, “Dobson is wrong. The video makes no reference to sexual orientation. When push comes to shove, some religious extremists would turn their back on the shunning, taunting and bullying that gay children are exposed to, in order to thwart any message that young people should be tolerant of different sexual identities. And, remember, they do this ugliness in the name of Christianity.”

You know, if the whole issue didn’t underscore the bigotry and intolerance of these people, it would be funny. Let's not let this be the legacy of Sponge Bob Square Pants!!

2005-01-22T13:59:00.000-07:00

THE KING IS READY

Well folks, here we are only two days after the coronation of King George of Republica. All hail the mighty conqueror. You'll all be happy to know that it didn't take long for King George to stab in the back those who supported his kingship for another four years. Like kings of old, after his regal, pomp, and sumptuous coronation, George W has returned to his throne skipping with brutal gayety over the backs of those who most religiously reselected him.

target=_top>

In order to still the rising tumult against an unbalanced budget which has the national debt increasing every time King George takes a breath, our grand and glorious leader is, once again, preparing a new budget to send to congress that even his Repubo bedmates will gag over and awkwardly try to defend on one hand while wishing it would go away on the other.

Fear not, you filthy rich toadies, you pillars of American greed and power, King George is NOT going to rescind the lavish tax cuts he granted you in his first term on the royal throne. No, he's going to do what those of us who know him well claimed he would do the very minute he was reselected. It's that horrid thing you said shouldn't, wouldn't, couldn't possibly happen at the hand of this compassionate conservative commander of corporate cronyism. Remember?

" target=_top>

King George is going to attempt to balance the budget by taking money from those who need it most - the poor, underprivileged, and the needy.

Speaking on condition of anonymity (while deftly holding their balls in a protective grip) lobbyists and lawmakers' aides say King George will focus his cuts on Medicaide. Yes, the health-care program for low-income and disabled people. Of course that's not all the Bushite has his greedy eye on.

Bush has always craved to pluck monies from agriculture and other benefit agendas, called entitlements. These programs grow exponentially because benefits go automatically to anyone who qualifies.

By proposing an overhaul of Social Security, Bush has already asked his GOP brown nosers to go out on a limb, risking the angering of senior citizens in their home states. Simultaneously cutting Medicaid and other programs would not only increase the ire of constituents but also the heartburn of their legislators - not to mention having to listen to the deafening chorus of "I told you so" that would come from the other side of the aisle.

target=_top>

Imagine the primal screams from doctors if King George decides to cut the pay Medicare physicians receive from the government tit. Do you think farmers, veterans, and the poor and homeless will sit still while their King cuts their entitlements?

But King George will do it because we all must suffer equally in these times of war and need. Well, everyone but the rich, who will still enjoy their tax cuts and look longingly to the King to give them more.

After all, why harm the rich when, as Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you." Let them eat cake, right? Mayhaps the reasoning behind all this can be found in Sean Hannitys new book:

2005-01-16T19:33:00.000-07:00

The Sanctification of Marriage in Arizona

The Repubos that run the state of Arizona want to put an initiative on the ballet in either 2005 or 2006 to amend the state constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. (The Repubos prefer 06 and the Dems 05 because of the elections in 06.) Unfortunately, Reps Warde Nichols and Marc Anderson's planned amendment would go much farther than just blocking gay couples from marrying - it would eliminate all forms (civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) of legal partnerships now in force in some cities under state law and would disallow all marriage benefits to unmarried couples.

" target=_top>

The two Repubos say, of course, that they are defending the "sanctity of marriage", and that the amendment they propose would discourage "unconventional unions." But they've actually added a third reason for pushing the bill. They want to eliminate any benefits to unmarried couples that "cost taxpayers money" - thereby helping balance the state's budget. Gee, and I thought the American way was that the people who paid money to the government in taxes should reap any benefits equally with other good taxpaying Americans. I thought America had embraced its diversity, understanding we are all unconventional in some way. How wrong I am, apparently.

target=_top>

Let's take one more look at the "sanctity of marriage" issue - not from the usual perspective (divorce, prisoners, pedophiles) but from the standpoint of the various religions seeking to keep gays and lesbians unmarried.

Let's say I was a Catholic man and wanted to marry a Mormon woman. I couldn't marry her in the Catholic Church because they won't marry anyone who isn't a Catholic. They take this so seriously that recently they fired the leader of the Phoenix Diocese's Office of Child and Youth Protection, Jenny O'Connor, because she married outside the church.

target=_top>

Mormons look at this exactly the same way, so our couple wouldn't be able to marry in a LDS temple or stake either. Mixed marriages aren't allowed by Orthodox Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses either. Why? The Sanctity of Marriage does not allow for a man and a woman to be "unevenly yoked", as they put it. This translates - you can't marry outside the faith and remain in good standing.

" target=_top>

My question is, why haven't the Catholics, or the Mormons, or the Jews, or the JWs put forth an amendment to the state constitution outlawing any but their faith to be issued a marriage license?

Baptists should be included in that group as well. Many Baptists ministers will refuse to marry two people if one or both of them is divorced and the severed mate is still alive. How come the Baptists aren't pushing for an amendment banning divorced people from marrying?

Don't think they wouldn't like to. Remember, if you're not a Catholic, you're going to hell on a sled. If your not a Mormon, same deal. JW's too, well, no hell, but you'll be destroyed. And ask a Baptist what will happen to you if you aren't saved. Since these religions want to sanctify marriage by keeping sinners (read "anyone who doesn't believe the way they do") from marrying, where's the push for the amendments?

" target=_top>

It's simple really - there aren't enough members in any of these wacko faiths to carry it off. Believe me, they would if they could. But...what an easy target the gays are. All these faiths can all ban together to get rid of the gays and the average American will clap his hands for the effort.

No honest American, no believer in the Constitution would EVER sign a petition or vote for such an un-American amendment. People need to wake up and understand what they're doing. It isn't about marriage, it's about bigotry. Pure and simple.

If this becomes law, forget about the gay couples and their children who would be hurt beyond these people's understanding, the elderly who don't marry in order to keep their Social Security, which they depend on to eke out a quiet living, would not gain benefits as a domestic couple. Neither would anyone else not married whether the law allows them to or not.

Who gets to define what an "unconventional union" is? In the past, they thought a mixed racial marriage was "unconventional," but the courts said no. That's one reason these people want to get this bill passed before the marriage issue reaches the courts. They know what would happen. After all, ourside of their God given sexuality, there is nothing uncovential about a gay person's lifestyle. Oh, I forgot to mention, the new amendment would also disallow courts from hearing any cases involving marriage. Nice capper, hey?

" target=_top>

My question is, what's next? Do we require queers to wear a big red "Q" on their sleeves? Mayhaps we should rip them from their homes and put them together in a ghetto, all of their own. Certainly we shouldn't allow them to adopt children, hold a job, teach in our schools, or own property. I'm sure if we think hard enough on the issue we'll come up with an "ultimate solution." Then life in America will be truly sanctified.

2004-12-24T11:00:00.000-07:00

Who Was The Kingmaker?

There are a lot of differing ideas concerning who or what propelled George Bush over the top on election day 2004. Here's the list of the most popular candidates for Kingmaker 2004:

target=_top>

1. The morals values of The Christian Majority made the difference. Some people feel that the American people have had enough abuse by abortion, same-sex marriage, and the Ten Commandments. They voted for Bush because he represents the moral values that all true Americans believe in and want in their political leader. The vote for moral values pushed Bush over the top.

2. The Democratic Party is out of touch with American voters. They chose a person for president that was too far to the left on most issues for Americans to swallow. Their continued misunderstanding of what Americans want in a political party and a president cost them this election.

3. Magic man, Karl Rove, who single-handedly laid waste to the Democrats with his astute campaign trickery. No doubt about it - the man is a miracle worker, able to transform a babbling nincompoop into heroic military leader in the eyes and minds of the American public.

target=_top>

But I contend that the real kingmaker of 2004 was none of the above. That honor goes to the unholy trinity of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, Sinclair Broadcast Group, and Clear Channel Communications. You simply can't beat the magnitude of propaganda that this group foists upon the American public. Not only do they manage to reach into millions upon millions of American homes through television and cable news, radio talk shows, books like the one published for the swift boat people, and newspapers, but their huge financial success also influences other media organizations to follow their lead to enough of a degree that there is little to no objective news reporting left to inform Americans of what's really going on in their country and in the world.

Fox News and it's Murdoch allies in print media do not broadcast news. They broadcast opinions. And those opinions come to you direct from the leadership of the Republican party. They work under the truth that if a lie is repeated often enough it will be believed by the masses. How do we know this? It's a well known fact that a large percentage of conservative voters believed that Iraq had WMD and was connected to Al Qaeda. What isn't so well known is that over 60% of the viewers of Fox News held those two opinions. This is the results of propaganda at it's best. (Propaganda - the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.)

target=_top>

Fox News is making money hand over foot by dispensing their schluck to a gullible American public. Because of this, other news organizations (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.) are following the lead of not reporting news that might bristle the hairs on the back of the Republican party.

Now that the election is over, is it still happening? Of course. Fox is aggressively hyping several small controversies involving public holiday displays that don't explicitly mention Christmas in order to depict a widespread and sinister "attack on Christmas" by "secular progressives." Led by hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, Fox News anchors have returned continually to several minor stories whose theme is the purported marginalization or persecution of Christians. They quote people like Jerry Falwell. "We are winning the war on Christmas. Thank God for the few conservatives in the media."

target=_top>

[The poster above dates to the mid-1930's.
It promotes the Nazi charitable organization (the NSV).
The text reads: "Support the assistance program for mothers and children."]

On two consecutive nights, Fox News host Sean Hannity reported that students at a New Jersey elementary school were not allowed to sing Silent Night during their Christmas pagent, when in actuality the school did allow it's children to sing the song. This, of course, was never mentioned by Fox.

This is the kind of reporting that managed to get George W. Bush reelected despite his horrible record in Iraq, on the economy, and the environment. Because Rupert's media empire and Sinclair and Clear Channel's TV and radio had been slanting of the truth, the American people were never given an accurate presentation of what Bush was doing as the leader of our country. Every opposing voice or leader was shouted down, made to look silly, and/or grossly incompetent. How could Kerry have possibly overcome this steamroller of propaganda?

The suppression of truth by glorifying one party and candidate while mocking and demonizing the others is what dictatorships like Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia counted on to gain power and keep themselves in power in their respective countries. Is this what America must look forward to? It's happening now and will continue to happen unless we somehow manage to legislate equality and truth back into the reporting of news.

" target=_top>

Now, I'm all for free speech. I believe Americans have the right to hear Pat Buchanan say, "Homosexuality is anaffliction, like alcoholism." But I don't believe it should be the ONLY opinion we hear on the subject. Especially during an election.

There used to be something called "equal time" for each candidate appearing in the news. If you reported something positive about one candidate, you were supposed to report something positive about the other. The networks were held to reporting facts as truthfully as possible. This has gone by the wayside completely. When Fox counted down the days to the election, it did so this way: "120 more days until President Bush gets reelected." I expect propaganda from political parties or extensions of the political parties such as this journal. I do NOT expect it from the national news.

I'm sorry. That's just not right. I hate to say it, but strong propaganda works.

(Health, child protection, fighting poverty,
aiding travellers, community, helping mothers.
These are the tasks of the National Socialist People's Charity.
Become a member!)

2004-10-04T21:27:00.000-07:00

THE GLOBAL TEST

Tell me. Are the Repubos deaf, liars, or just plain outright stupid? It pleases me to no end that they are taking one line from the Kerry/Bush debate about "Global Tests" and running it into the ground, posturing that Kerry says we must "take an international poll before we defend our country." This is what Kerry said during the debate:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, you've got to do it in a way that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

I'll give you an example of a "Global Test" - Adlai Stevensen's address concerning the American blockade of Cuba to the United Nations given during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crises, where Stevensen showed the UN photographs of the missile sites on Cuban soil and ships carrying them on their decks, heading to Cuba.

This is the "Global Test" John Kerry spoke of. A test that proves America is taking action for REAL reasons.

Now, compare that to Colin Powell's address to the UN where he declared emphatically and without doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to al Queda. He tried to sell that arguement, without any significant proof, as Bush's reason to invade Iraq. The UN didn't buy into Powel's logic. That's why outside of the United Kingdom, none of the main European, Arabic, or Eastern Powers joined Bush in his invasion of a basically unprotected Iraq.

Which case to the UN passed the "Global Test?" Stevensen's or Powell's? Is it really that difficult to understand what Kerry was talking about? Is it possible to confuse this with asking other nations to approve our going to war in our country's defense?

The only intelligent answer is a loud, "No!" But the Repubos have hit on nothing else since the debate. I'm sure you'll hear Cheney say it again tomorrow night. The Repubos have no real defensible position. They have to lie, deceive, twist and warp the truth in order to get Americans to believe them.

Kerry's comment drew immediate criticism from Bush:

"I'm not exactly sure what he means, 'passes the global test'. That you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.' My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure."

During an appearance in Ohio late last week, Bush added:

"When our country is in danger, it is not the job of the president to take an international poll; it's to defend our country."

And this is the man that must justify American actions to the world! Our Commander-in-Chief. He doesn't even understand that the world will hold us as accountable for our actions as any other country. We can't lie to the world about our actions and have them accept it as truth without proof of what we're talking about. We would expect that of other countries and they expect it of us. Apparently, our President doesn't understand that. Geeze Louise.

And do you know what Condoleezza Rice said about it? "I heard Senator Kerry say that there was some kind of 'global test' that you ought to be able to pass to support preemption, and I don't understand what that means. I don't understand 'proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.'"

Now tell me. If a 28 year old home-schooled GIRL from Apache Junction, Arizonia, can understand what a "Global Test" is, why can't the President of the United States, his National Security Advisor and almost every Repulican in Congress??

2004-09-03T17:44:00.000-07:00

The 2004 Republican Convention

Day One:

Tighten your seat belt. Ready for the ride? Did any of you spend the day as I did watching the Repubo Convention in NYC?? If so, how many times did you throw up??

The whole theme of the convention is obviously going to be "George Bush is one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history because of what he did during September 11th, 2001."

The Repubos had a great time listening to military parade music, pinching each other's asses, and listening reverently to each man with something important to say. Yes... women were downplayed. They're supposed to be silent around their betters. One thing I noticed that contrasted with the Democratic convention in Boston, this crowd was all bedecked in their finery. The men with two and three piece suits, the women in fashion elegant dresses wearing their most expensive jewelry. The Demo crowd mostly wore shorts and T's. Now be honest - which group do you think has middle class America in it's heart??

So how do you feel about the Repubo claptrap foisted on their willing listeners? We were informed that President Bush was solely responsible for acting quickly and decisively during 9-11. He single-handedly brought Americans together without thought to party or politics. The Republican party is the party of heroes, and should be remembered for their courageous actions during and after that infamous day. Every speech was filled with talk about 9-11. Even though this president said he would never use the attack against America for political gain. HA. There were tributes to the victims, many videos of Bush at ground zero, it went on and on and on and will continue to do so.

We should all cheer Bush for his aggressive hunt for terrorists in Afghanistan. We should cheer him even more so for his decision to make war on a third rate country that couldn't defend itself and had no connection to the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center. But we're not supposed to think about that. We're supposed to revere Bush for the quickness by which the war ended. Certainly a strong leader making definitive decisions during our time of great peril.

September 11th was a short time ago, but I'm sure y'all remember that the Bush didn't make one single decision that day. In fact, he knew something happened but he didn't know what. He asked no questions. Made no phone calls. Issued no orders. (He thought a twin engine plane flew into one of the towers, figuring the pilot must have had a heart attack.) He walked into Emma E. Brooker Elementary School in Florida on or about 9:03AM for his photo op with the children. It was just after the first jet smacked into the Towers.

With America under attack, one of the greatest presidents of all time did NOTHING!!

On or about 9:30AM, the second plane smashed into the other Tower. Chief of Staff, Andrew Card waited for an appropriate time and during a pause in the proceedings walked slightly behind Bush and whispered in his ear that "America is under attack," and told him about the second airliner crash.

At the convention, the Repubos played a tape of this happening. They slowed it and stopped action so you could see our wondrous leader deep in thought. He certainly looked presidential. In actually, he was dumb-founded. He continued reading with the children for the next seven minutes. After that, he stood and answered questions for another ten minutes or so and then posed with the teacher and her class for a photo shoot. It wasn't until around 9:20 or so that he left the building. All decisions that day were handled by Cheney and Condi Rice. The Commander In Chief did nothing but what he was told to do by his handlers. He didn't get back to the White House until about 7:00PM. Then he spoke to the Nation on TV at 8:30PM and managed to be in bed by 11:30ish.

If you'd like to read the full story about this, it's here. And the movie of Bush in the class room is here. Oh, and it takes a bit of time for the 11 minute film to load. Enjoy. You'll see it's quite different from what you saw at the convention.

Soon after this, the Administration's focus turned from the terrorists to Iraq. And we know what happened then.

Day Two:
Today followed the theme established in Day 1, with a bit of slight-of-hand to boot. Not only are we to revere King George, the hero of September 11th, but we are supposed to include the war in Iraq as part of the war against terrorism. We are told to believe that the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism are one in the same. Every time Iraq has been brought up so far, it's always in context with fighting terrorism.

Do they think Americans are stupid? We've been told by various sources across the world over and over again that Iraq had zero, zip, nada, nothing to do with the terrorists that attacked on 9-11. This whole issue was put to bed by the 9-11 Commission report that stated flatly that there were no connections between the terrorists and Iraq. Is that difficult to understand? The war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism are NOT one in the same. They are VERY different and have been fought for different reasons. Wake up America before you sell your soul for another lie.

Day 2 had a sub-theme as well - Compassionate Conservatism. We heard this bull kaka in Bush's first campaign and he's dragging it out again as if his presidency showed any compassion to people at all. But they trotted out Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mrs. Bush in an effort to show that the Repubos have a soft underbelly.

Unfortunately for them, they started the night with compassionless North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole - wife of former presidential wannabe Bob Dole. Sweet Elizabeth laid it on the line as far as Repubo compassion goes - Women don't deserve the right of choice under ANY circumstances and Gays have no right to marry the person they love in this, the land of freedom and equality. Let's all cheer compassionate conservatism.

Arnold's speech was quite the opposite. Ignoring his own stand for gay marriage and pro choice, Ahnold played the party fiddle and danced the Repubo jig in a very convincing and fiery speech. He did a great job. He told his rags to riches story and explained he became a Republican because he liked the comments made by former President Richard Nixon. Many Repubos admire Tricky Dicky and they've certainly learned how to run a campaign from him.

Arnold is an old style Republican, moderate, unwilling to spend when the money isn't there, unwilling to tax to bring in the money needed. He's a good speaker, in the mold of Ronald Regan. I'm sure the Repubos will try to change the constitution (again) to give Arnold a shot at the presidency someday oneday. Mayhaps not though because Arnold's social beliefs are not those of the religious right wing which is the pulsing heart of the new Repubo party.

Mrs. Bush's speech was pretty much what one would expect from the wife of this president. Very supporting and full of slush and gush. I think Laura really has a compassionate side. Most women do unless it's been seared by our patriarchal society. But I think her compassion is overshadowed by her husband's beliefs. She tried to show us her husband's anxiety concerning going to war with Iraq. Bush was anxious - anxious to throw the world's strongest military power against a third world country who never attacked us, was in no way connected to the people who did attack us, and couldn't possibly defend itself against the might of American armed forces.

So that's about it for day 2. Let's see what kind of new gobbledygook day 3 brings.

Day Three:

Today the REAL Repubo spirit showed its face to the nation. First, Senator Zig-Zag Zell Miller unleashed a torrent of lies (9-11) and vicious attacks against John Kerry. Pundits shook their heads afterwards, (9-11) calling the attack the worst against a presidential candidate since the turn of the century and waaaaay over the top.

Here's the story on Zellie boy. In 1992 he led the attack on George Bush the Less (9-11) giving a similar but less violent speech as the keynote speaker for Bill Clinton. Zell counted Kerry a trusted (9-11) friend up to about a year and a half ago, calling him, "an honorable man," and saying he supported Kerry's record completely (9-11) up to a year and a half ago. What caused Zell's Zig-Zag? He almost lost his 1994 gubernatorial election because (9-11) he supported removing the Confederate cross from the state flag of Georgia. He learned a lesson about (9-11) who's back to scratch.

Zell is the last of the conservative Democrats to move to the Republican Party. For the past (9-11) two years, he has voted with the Repubos every time. That he continues to call himself a Democrat (9-11) makes no mattermind. If I call kaka cake, would you want to eat it? This former raciest supporter of Lestor Maddox, a man who chased blacks out of a restaurant with a baseball bat, has (9-11) always altered the facts concerning his opponents. He's the miserable excuse for a senator that slandered Cynthia McKinney with words she (9-11) never said. He did the same thing to Kerry last night.

Should we pay any attention to Zell? Nah. One look at the hatred expressed in his (9-11) face as he spoke was enough for me. Zell obviously lives out of fear and fear of terrorists attacks have pushed him to Bushie, who also rules out of fear. Instead of supporting a (9-11) man who will DO something about the terrorists who attacked us, Zell runs to the man who did little except waste time, resources (9-11) and our national reputation by attacking Iraq. Have you noticed, Zell, that the name of (9-11) Osama bin Laden has NOT been mentioned one time so far during this convention? According to the Repubos, John Kerry is the number 1 enemy of the United States.

Zell was followed by our Vice President, Dick pottymouth Cheney. Although he (9-11) wasn't as scathing as Miller, he certainly threw out the red meat to the lions with another withering attack on John Kerry AFTER paying (9-11) homage to King George. Attacking is something Cheney is very good at. Ask any Iraqi. Of (9-11) course Tricky Dicky II couldn't get his facts straight either. He trumped Kerry's comments concerning two Americas by saying that's why there's (9-11) two Kerrys. The only problem is, John Kerry never talked about two Americas - his running mate, John Edwards, did. Sooo Repubo, no? Slash (9-11) and burn without concern for the facts.

So there you have it. Republicans being Republicans for a change. Refreshing!! At least the (9-11) references concerning Bushie's what a Hero Georgie Boy was on 9-11 were kept to (9-11) unsubtle statements peppered throughout the speeches. A nice change (9-11) but certainly not undetectable.

Tomorrow we get King George (9-11) himself. Bring your barf bags.

Day Four:

And so it ends.

The Repubos laid down one paramount thought during this convention. Forget the Economy and how this president has paid less attention than any other to his own country. Forget that he raped the environment to line the pockets of his Big Business buddies. Forget that he preemptively struck down another sovereign Nation who had no means to be a threat to us whatsoever. Forget that his tax cuts for the rich handed this country the worst deficit in the history of our nation. Forget that he stopped fighting the real terrorists to settle a score in Iraq. Forget all of that and more.

The only thing we should remember about King George is that he stood on top of some rubble with a bullhorn a few days after 9-11 in what amounted to the most overstated photo-op since McArthur's return to the Philippines. That's why we should all vote for Mr. Bush. That's why we should recognize him as the strongest leader this country has ever seen. Nothing else matters.

I have only three words to say about this: My Pet Goat.

Three years into the war on terror, Mr. Bush still doesn't understand why the terrorists are fighting us. He says, "The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear." They are not fighting freedom. Their reasons run much deeper than that. And if our President can't understand the reasons they're against us, he will NOT be able to defeat them. Why haven't we helped the Russians with the attack on their school recently? Is this not terrorism? And what about Sudan? The U.S. has sat in silence while terrorists have killed millions there. We're not really fighting against terrorism at all are we? We're fighting to make Bush's buddies richer.

So where would the Bushman lead us over the next four years. Well, he said, "I believe every child can learn and every school must teach, so we passed the most important federal education reform in history. Because we acted, children are making sustained progress in reading and math, America's schools are getting better, and nothing will hold us back." In fact, during this convention, No Child Left Behind has been portrayed as one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. The truth is, educators hate it. Because the Bush never chose to fully fund the program, few children benefited from it. We're supposed to look forward to four more years of a failed program.

"I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors, so I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare. Now seniors are getting immediate help buying medicine. Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage, and nothing will hold us back." Bushie neglected to mention the fact that this program benefits the HMO's and large pharmaceutical companies much more than it does senior citizens. It boils down to saving them the price of a movie ticket each month. And Bush had to lie to congress about the cost of this turkey in order to get it passed. We're to look forward to another failed program in the Bushie future.

"I believe in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers and ranchers, so we unleashed that energy with the largest tax relief in a generation." I have no doubt that in the next four years under the Bush not only will the tax cuts for his rich friends be made permanent, there will be more of them, leaving the Middle Class to pick up the bill.

"Because we acted, our economy is growing again and creating jobs, and nothing will hold us back." If you believe that the jobs the Bush administration has given us are equal to those that have been lost, you're a Republican with your head pushed neatly below the sand. How a man who's policies have cost Americans more jobs than any president this century has the balls to say we should reselect him on his employment record is beyond me. This president equates a computer technician with a fast food worker. He loses the former and gains the latter and we're supposed to believe he has done something good for us? Who wants four more years of this?

"I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch." I hate to remind you Mr. President, it already HAS HAPPENED on your watch. Your policy in Iraq has done nothing more than insure it will probably happen to us again. I notice there is no mention of bin Laden in your speech either. He's the forgotten man to the Republicans. If we do not concentrate on him, we have done NOTHING to protect this country from terrorism. Four more years of the kind of "protection" that fights vehemently against the truths concerning 9-11 from coming out and when they are finally presented to the American people, does nothing concerning the recommendations to make America safer, four more years of that? I think not!!

"I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives." Yes, you're not trying to run anyone's lives are you Mr. Compassion? You not only want a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriages, you want it so strong that NONE of the benefits of marriage are ever given to these American citizens. If that's not running someone's life, what is?? I've read this plank in your Repubo platform, sir. It belongs in the platform of a bigoted fascist party, not the Republican party. You may not have mentioned it many times during this convention, but we know it's heavy on your soul.

"To create jobs, my plan will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making the tax relief permanent." This hasn't created any jobs yet. The CEO's are taking the tax breaks and stuffing them in their own pockets. Four more years of this? You're kidding me.

"To create jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy." One way is to continue preemptive strikes on Middle Eastern Oil countries like we did in Iraq. Unfortunately the only jobs created by this have been gone to one company - Halliburton. And Americans should allow this to continue?

"To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe." Oh you've done a great job with this Mr. Bushie. Our trade deficit is the worst it's been in the history of our Nation. You're not creating jobs through trade, you're destroying them. And you have the nards to ask for four more years to continue this policy??

"And we must protect small-business owners and workers from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across our country." The only thing this will accomplish is the overthrow of any chance the middle class and poor have of legal retribution against huge corporations that take them for a ride. Another plus for your big business buddies, George? It's not hard to see who this would help.

"Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess, filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than 6 billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve -- and our economic future demands -- a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system." While I agree in principle that this needs to be done, I stop short at giving YOU the power to do it. I shudder to think what advantages you would give to huge corporations and the already rich. I've seen what your tax cuts have done to the country. I've seen who gained from them. The idea of allowing you to tinker with the tax codes scares me to no end. You keep away from this George. This is an excellent reason NOT to vote for you.

"In this time of change, opportunity in some communities is more distant than in others. To stand with workers in poor communities and those that have lost manufacturing, textile, and other jobs, we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America." We've heard all this from you before, sir. What good is training people for jobs that don't exist? When the jobs you're training them to do have already been exported to foreign countries? With all this "tax relief," who's going to pay for all your new programs? That's what happened to No Child Left Behind and why we have this incredible deficit. When will Repubos learn that taxes pay for programs??

"We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. Theseaccounts give workers the security of insurance against major illness, the opportunity to save tax-free for routine health expenses, and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs. We will provide low-income Americans with better access to health care. In a new term, I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center." What good will they be when only people with money or insurance can use them? You say your small business thingie will help half of the uninsured to gain insurance. What about the other half? America needs a program where ALL people, especially ALL CHILDREN have health insurance. Nothing less will suffice.

"In a new term we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp-time and flex-time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family-friendly workplace." Why do I fear that these changes will benefit only the corporations? Comp and flex time put no more dollars into workers pockets, but I'll bet the house your changes will put billions of dollars into the pockets of CEO's across the country. It's your track record, Mr. President. What good are comp time and flex time to people having to work two jobs or more to make ends meet?

"Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, 'Welcome to my home.'" And what happens when a high percentage of those families lose their home in bankruptcy after a few years because its double mortgaged, and they lost their job and can't make ends meet even working two jobs? The great majority of us live paycheck to paycheck, a lifestyle you are poorly equipped to understand. You dangle home ownership in front of us like a carrot at the end of a stick. Good paying jobs will help us secure a home faster than your gobbledygook, George.

"We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account, a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away." And what happens when these young people dip into their 'nest egg' cause they can't make ends meet on the wages their jobs pay? They'll have nothing for retirement. Then what? Repubo run poor houses and poor farms?

"In this time of change, most new jobs are filled by people with at least two years of college, yet only about one in four students gets there. In our high schools, we will fund early intervention programs to help students at risk. We will place a new focus on math and science. As we make progress, we will require a rigorous exam before graduation. By raising performance in our high schools and expanding Pell Grants for low and middle income families, we will help more Americans start their career with a college diploma." And will all this die on the vine like No Child Left Behind because you won't have the money to fund it? What good is making promises like this when you can't fulfill them? Oh...I forgot. It helps you win elections. Fool me once, your fault. Fool me twice, forget it. It's not going to happen again.

"And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law." If this one doesn't stick in your throat I don't know what will. All Bush's appointments have been right wing conservative judges who follow ONLY their personal opinions when ruling from the bench. If you allow the Bush to continue selecting judges for four more years, you're giving away your freedoms to a group of people that would change the Constitution of the United States so much that it would be unrecognizable. And they would strip the judiciary from being able to correct it by destroying the checks and balances that have kept our politician's hands off our freedoms and equality. This should rouse real fear in you as an American citizen. The separation between church and state would be gone forever.

This is the Bush plan for the future, people. We've heard it all before during his last run for office. And he did NOTHING after he was selected. If you want four more years of that, vote for George W. Bush on November 2nd. Frankly, I'd rather give the hero of 9-11 the pink slip.

2004-08-29T19:18:00.000-07:00

GEORGE DOES LIE

Yes, it's amazing but Bush does lie! Frequently!

"Bush lies" is reprinted here courtesy of Eazyguy62 who did all the hard work of collecting and putting this together. It's long - but so is Bushie's nose. Thank you, Guy!!

Bush Quote:

“Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” - UN speech [White House Web site]

The Facts:

Knight-Ridder reported that experts now say the "Iraq war is diverting resources from war on terror." Specifically, "a growing number of counter-terrorism experts are questioning whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq has hurt rather than helped the global battle against al Qaeda." Republican and Democratic experts "are increasingly suggesting that the Iraq war has diverted momentum, troops and intelligence resources from the worldwide campaign to destroy the remnants of al Qaeda." Similarly, the U.S. Army War College reported that the Iraq war "diverted attention and resources away from the security of the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda." - Knight-Ridder, 11/26/03; BBC, 1/13/04

Bush Quote:

“All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization.” - UN Speech [Source: White House Web site]

The Facts:

The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis despite the findings of a bipartisan commission investigating 9/11. The commission found the Saudigovernment “not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.” - LA Times, 8/2/03

Bush Quote:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” [Source: White House Web site]

The Facts:

Declassified documents “undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to al Qaeda.” - LA Times, 7/19/03

Bush Quote:

"[My] first goal is an economythat [will] employ every man and woman who seeks a job." [Source: White House Web site]

The Facts:

More than 2 million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office, and he is expected to have a net record of job losses by the end of his term - the first President with such a dismal record since Herbert Hoover.

Bush Quote:

"I'm sure the numbers are beginning to look better." [Source: White House Web site]

The Facts:

"Data released today by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the Bush administration fell 437,000 jobs short in August, losing 93,000 jobs, instead of creating the 344,000 it had projected for each month after July 2003." - EPI, 9/5/03

Bush Quote:

“We have made clear the doctrine which says, if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you hide a terrorist you're just as guilty as the terrorist. We're holding regimes accountable for harboring and supporting terror.” [Source: White House Web site]

The Facts:

"That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that 'rogue regime' for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention." - LA Times, 5/22/01

Bush Quote:

"Tax relief means new jobs for Americans." [Source: White House Web site]
The Facts: Since Bush's first tax cut in June, 2001 the economy has shed 2.75 million jobs. - CBPP Bush Quote: "The United States has no more important relationship in the world than the one we have with Mexico." [Source: White House Web site]

The Facts:

More than three years into his tenure, Bush had spent a total of five days in Mexico and so neglected its affairs that even "Mexican President Vicente Fox...has been alienated." WP reported president's meeting with his onetime friend at a summit in Bangkok would be "their first in a year." - Washington Post, 10/17/03

Bush Quote:

"We must fix the problem of frivolous lawsuits against our doctors and hospitals." [Source: White House Web site]

The Facts:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found last year that "malpractice costs account for a very small fraction of total health care spending" and that even radical reform "would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums." - CBO, 9/25/02

Bush Quote:

"If there's a Medicare reform bill signed by me, corporations have no intention to what they call dump retirees into a system they don't want to be dumped into." [Source: White House Web site]

The Facts:

"In a move that will likely "create anxiety for many of the 12 million Medicare beneficiaries who also receive health benefits from their former employers," the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission voted yesterday to "allow employers to reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they become eligible for Medicare at age 65." - NY Times, 4/23/04

Bush Quote:

“Credibility comes when you say something is going to happen and then it does happen…You are not credible if you issue resolutions and then nothing happens.” [Source: White House Web site]

The Facts:

Bush said about his first tax cut, “Tax relief will create new jobs” and the economy proceeded to shed almost 3 million jobs. He said about his second tax cut, “tax relief means new jobs for Americans” and the economy continued to shed jobs. He said about the war in Iraq in May, “major combat operations have ended” and yet more troops have died since that statement than during the war. - George W. Bush, 4/16/01, 9/5/03, 5/1/03

Bush Quote:

“So I’ve proposed additional measures to keep the economy on the path to greater job creation…by making permanent the tax cuts that have helped our economy.” [Source: CNN Web site]

The Facts:

Since the first Bush tax cut took effect in June 2001,the U.S. economy has lost 2.75 million jobs – the unemployment rate has risen from 4.4% to 5.6%. Since the second Bush tax cut took effect in May 2003, the economy has shed 124,000 more jobs. - BLS

Bush Quote:

“The world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership.” [White House Web site]

The Facts:

According to Amnesty International’s 2003 annual report, “The world has become more dangerous, and governments more repressive, since the effort to fight terrorism began after the 9/11, attacks on the United States.” For the U.S. specifically, “Since March, 353 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, including 229 in hostile fire.” - NY Times, 5/29/03; CNN, 10/28/03

Bush Quote: 9/29/2000

"[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Source: Bush Environmental Plan]

Fact:

"I do not believe that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide." - President Bush, 3/13/03

Bush Quote: 9/26/2002

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

“Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” - National Journal, 8/9/03

Bush Quote: 9/26/2002

“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Bush Quote: 9/24/2003

"We've had differences [with Germany and France] and they're over, and we're going to work together." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

The Bush Administration announced it "will bar companies from France, Germany, Russia and other countries that opposed the war in Iraq from bidding on $18.6 billion in prime contracts for reconstruction of the country." - LA Times, 12/10/03

Bush Quote: 9/23/2003

"The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” [Source: White HouseWeb site -- Speech to UN]

Facts:

"CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam." - NY Times, 1/15/04

"Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al-Qaida, and several key parts of the administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful. Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league." - Knight-Ridder, 3/02/04

Bush Quote: 10/28/2003

"General Abizaid makes the decision as to whether or not he needs more troops... And he told me he does [have enough troops]." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

Less than two weeks later, the Bush Administration announced its decision"to dispatch thousands of Marines to Iraq as part of a revised troop rotation that will swell the size of the US occupation by up to 50,000 troops." - Boston Globe, 11/6/03

Bush Quote: 10/28/2003

“I’ve asked the American people to foot the tab for $20 billion of reconstruction…Others are stepping up as well, 13 billion out of the Madrid Conference…The Iraqi oil revenues – excess Iraqi oil revenues, coupled with private investments, should make up the difference.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

The World Bank and the UN estimate that $56 billion over four years is necessary to rebuild Iraq – leaving the total pledged by the U.S. and others (counting loans) $23 billion dollars short of what is required. The top civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, told Congress in September that “for thenext two years, whatever revenue was reaped from oil production would not exceed the cost of Iraq's day-to-day operating expenses.” In 2005 he estimated “a surplus of only $4 million to $5 million.” - LA Times, 10/26/03; NY Times, 10/5/03

Bush Quote: 10/27/2003

"A free and secure Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have enormous historical impact." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

According to a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, "Majorities in seven of the eight foreign countries said the war in Iraq hurt or had no effect on the war on terrorism, and only in the United States did a majority believe that the ouster of Saddam Hussein will make the Middle East more democratic." - WP, 3/17/04

Bush Quote: 10/22/2003

“You've got to have some patience in foreign policy.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

“Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.” - CBS, 9/4/02

Bush Quote: 10/22/2003

"I made it clear that a [diplomatic] process had gone on way before I made the decision to use military force.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

According to Bush’s State Department Director of Policy and Planning Richard Haas, the decision to go to war had been made by July of 2002 – 8 months before the invasion. When asked whether there was a particular moment when he realized war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi…She said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath.” - New Yorker, 3/31/03
Time reported in May (2002) that in late March of 2002 Vice President Dick Cheney told Senators “The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq...The only question was when." - Time, 5/6/02

Bush Quote: 10/18/2002

On October 18, 2002, our Nation marks the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act and begins the Observance of the Year of Clean Water. This landmark environmental legislation has been central to the important progress we have made as a Nation in improving the quality of our drinking water and the health of our waters, wetlands, and watersheds." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

Under Bush's new budget, funding for clean water infrastructure would drop from $2.6 billion to $1.8 billion. The programs slated for reductions include "sewage treatment plants, water purification facilities, and targeted pollution-prevention investments." - Joint Budget Analysis by Environmental Groups, 2/4/04

Bush Quote: 10/17/2003

"If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like [Gore] is." [Source: Debate transcript]

Facts:

"The numbers are astonishing. Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination that this Congress has." - John McCain (R-AZ), Fox News, 11/30/03

"Conservative Republican frustration over the failure of the Bush administration and the House Republican leadership to restrain federal spending has boiled over in recent days, producing a rare confrontation between GOP lawmakers and party leaders." - The Hill, 12/3/03

Bush Quote: 10/17/2003

"Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going." [Source: Debate transcript]

Fact:

“The U.S. military is overstretched by deployments in Iraq and elsewhere, forcing the Pentagon to keep thousands of soldiers and reservists in uniform long beyond their release dates with potentially dangerous effects on morale, experts say.” - Reuters, 1/9/04

Bush Quote: 10/17/2003

"The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

According to testimony from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 10/16/03 the Bush Administration had deployed 1 soldier for every 189 people in Iraq, and 1 soldier for every 1,913 people in Afghanistan. Both were dramatically worse ratios than Kosovo (1 per 48), Bosnia (1 per 58) and East Timor (1 per 86)--the deployments of the Clinton years which Bush maligned during his campaign.

Bush Quote: 10/17/2000

"If I'm the president . . . people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court. That's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington." [Source: Debate transcript, reprinted in Washington Post]

Fact:

"Today, legislation for a federal patients' bill of rights is moribund in Congress. And the Bush administration's Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to block lawsuits under the very Texas law Bush touted in 2000." - Washington Post, 4/5/04

Bush Quote: 10/16/2003

"I came to this office to confront problems directly and forcefully, not to pass them on to future Presidents or future generations." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

“When the Treasury Department tallies up final figures later this month, it is expected to show a federal budget deficit between $370 billion and $380 billion for 2003,” one of the biggest debts passed onto another generation in American history. - Wall Street Journal, 10/9/03

Bush Quote: 10/9/2003

“I came to this office to confront problems directly and forcefully, not to pass them on to other Presidents and other generations.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

“When the Treasury Department tallies up final figures later this month, it is expected to show a federal budget deficit between $370 billion and $380 billion for 2003,” one of the biggest debts passed onto another generation in American history. - Wall Street Journal, 10/9/03

Bush Quote: 10/9/2003

“Last month this economy exceeded expectations and added net new jobs.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

The White House Council of Economic Advisors set expectations when President Bush proposed his economic stimulus package. The council said his economic policies would create 344,000 new jobs per month – not the paltry 57,000 jobs that were created. All told, Bush has overseen the loss of almost 3 million jobs – the worst record since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. - Economic Policy Institute

Bush Quote:

“I proposed and signed these [tax] measures to help individuals and help families.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

The most recent CBS News/New York Times poll shows that “despite three tax cuts in as many years, only 19 percent [of Americans surveyed] said Bush's policies made their taxes go down. Forty-seven percent noticed no effect, while 29 percent perceived that their taxes have gone up.” - Washington Post, 10/7/03
“Almost half of all American taxpayers will get less than $100 this year and next from President Bush’s most recent tax plan. In 2005, three-quarters of taxpayers will get less than $100, and in 2006 and later years almost nine out of ten will get less than $100.” - Citizens for Tax Justice, 5/30/03

Bush Quote: 10/9/2003

“I twice led the Congress to pass historic tax relief for the American people. We wanted tax relief to be as broad and as fair as possible, so we reduced taxes on everyone who pays taxes.” [Source: White House Web site]

Facts:

"A new AP poll finds that almost half of all Americans 'said their overall tax burden — including federal, state and local taxes — had gone up over the past threeyears' - almost four times the 13% who said their overall taxes had gone down." - AP, 4/13/04

“One million children living in military and veteran families are being denied child tax credit help” in President Bush's tax cut. “More than 260,000 of these children have parents on active military duty.” - Children's Defense Fund, 6/6/03

Bush Quote: 10/09/2003

"It's a lot better than you probably think. Just ask people who have been there. They're stunned when they come back -- when they go to Iraq and the stories they tell are much different from the perceptions that you're being told life is like." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

"After I came back from Iraq, I thought things were not as good as the administration was painting.” - John McCain (R-AZ), NYT, 10/24/03

Bush Quote:

“Your lives can be changed in a moment with the sudden call to duty. I want to thank you for your willingness to heed that important call, and I want to thank your families. I want to thank your sons, daughters, husbands and wives who share in your sacrifice, who are willing to sacrifice for our country and who stand behind you.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

Less than 2 weeks after the President made these comments, “the Bush administration announced its formal opposition to a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health-insurance system, jeopardizing the plan's future and angering supporters. A recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one of every five Guard members has no health insurance.” - Gannett News Service, 10/23/03

Bush Quote: 10/9/2003

“Any time we put our troops into harm's way, you must have the best training, the best equipment, the best possible pay.” [Source: White House Web site]

Facts:

“The administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.” - Army Times, 6/30/03

“When Bush taunted gunmen in Iraq, many GIs must have nervously tugged at their obsolete flak jackets. For many GIs, Iraq appears to be a strictly BYOB war -- Bring Your Own Bulletproofs. The shortages [of protective gear] come down to money and priorities. Gen. Richard B. Myers confirmed last week that it would be December before there were enough plates for all of our people in Iraq.” - Op-Ed, Dallas Ft. Worth Star Telegram, 10/5/03

Bush Quote:10/9/2001

"And therefore, I felt it was important to send a clear signal to Congress that classified information must be held dear, that there's a responsibility that if you receive a briefing of classified information, you have a responsibility." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

White House aides said "President Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer who is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, one of the most visible critics of Bush's handling of intelligence about Iraq." - Washington Post, 9/28/03
"White House officials left open the possibility that the they might assert executive privilege on some materials or withhold all or parts of others to block a full investigation of the leak of classified information." - NY Times, 10/8/03

Bush Quote: 10/9/2001

"We can't have leaks of classified information. It's not in our nation's interest." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"Bob Woodward said President Bush gave two reporters 90 minutes, often speaking candidly about classified information." - Providence Journal, 4/10/02

Bush Quote: 10/7/2002

“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

“We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

"The International Atomic Energy Agency's report that Iraq has not resumed its nuclear program has challenged one of the Bush administration's main arguments for taking military action to topple the Iraqi government." - NY Times, 1/28/03

Bush Quote: 10/7/2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

According to The Washington Post, Robert Boyd, the U.S. Air Force's senior intelligence analyst, has concluded that evidence uncovered in Iraq confirms the Air Force's prewar assessment that Iraq had been developing unmanned aerial vehicles (or drones) to fly reconnaissance missions, not to deliver WMDs. - Washington Post, 9/27/03

Bush Quote: 10/7/2002

"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait?" [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

Bush didn't care whether or not Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When Diane Sawyer tried to make a distinction between stating as a "hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons," Bush snapped back "so what's the difference?" - ABC,12/16/03

Bush Quote 1: 10/7/2002

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." [Source: White House Web site]

Bush Quote 2:

"Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans." - British Intelligence Agent, Sunday herald, 6/1/03

Bush Quote: 10/3/2003

“The [Kay] report states Saddam Hussein's regime had a clandestine network of biological laboratories, a live strain of deadly agent botulinum.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

“We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/02

Bush Quote: 10/3/2000

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Source: Debate transcript]

FACT:

"Nation-building has become a defining feature of the Bush Administration's foreign policy." - Boston Globe, 3/2/04

Bush Quote: 10/3/2000

"It's time for a new administration to deal with the energy problem." [Source: Debate transcript]

FACT:

"Nationwide, the average cost of gasoline rose 7.6 cents to $2.017 a gallon — the first time pump prices have averaged more than $2 a gallon nationwide." - LA Times, 5/18/04

Bush Quote: 11/27/2002

"We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

“President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.” - CBS News, 5/23/02

“Despite mounting evidence that most of the nation's intelligence sleuths were clueless before the attacks, [President Bush] opposes outside scrutiny - a stance that puts him at odds with most Senate Democrats and some key Republican lawmakers.” - Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/2/02

The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, rebuffed once previously, asked again yesterday to interview the CIA analyst who wrote the Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence briefing given to President Bush on al Qaeda's threat to the United States...The commission wants to interview the author of the article in the now-famous President's Daily Brief to determine her purpose in assembling the document and how much information she sought in doing so....The Bush administration in the past refused to allow the panel to interview CIA analysts responsible for assembling the briefs." - Washington Post, 4/13/04

Bush Quote: 11/24/2003

"Our military went to Afghanistan, destroyed the training camps of al Qaeda, and put the Taliban out of business forever." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"Nearly two years after the U.S. drove the Taliban from power, remnants of the Islamic extremist group are regrouping and attacking U.S. troops." - LA Times, 11/12/03

Bush Quote: 11/19/2003

"The tradition of free speech exercised with enthusiasm is alive and well here in London. We have that at home too. They now have that right in Baghdad as well." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"As criticism of his authority appeared in Iraqi media...Bremer placed controls on [Iraqi Media Network] content and clamped down on the independent media in Iraq , closing down some Iraqi-run newspapers and radio and television stations." - American Prospect, 10/1/03

Bush Quote: 11/19/1999

"Never again should an American president spend nine days in China, and not even bother to stop in Tokyo or Seoul." [Source: DOS Web site]

FACT:

"The glaring omission in President George Bush's journey to Asia is a stop in South Korea, which speaks volumes to the sorry state into which relations between Washington and Seoul have plunged." - Jakarta Post, 10/19/03

Bush Quote: 11/13/2003

"The budget I submitted earlier this year commits an additional $400 billion over 10 years to implement this vision of a stronger Medicare system. This is enough to meet our commitments to the seniors today and to future generations of Americans." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan...When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that...Bush administration officials insisted they acted legally in ordering the nation's top Medicare cost analyst to keep from lawmakers his estimate that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit might cost more than $100 billion [than what the White House promised]." - Knight Ridder, 3/11/04 and 4/2/04

Bush Quote: 11/13/2003

"What we're trying to do is to change the tone in Washington, D.C. We're trying to get rid of all the needless politics and focus on the people's business, focus on results, and not the ugly process that sometimes takes on. We're making good progress. We really are." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

" George Bush has cleaved the nation into two tenaciously opposed camps even more than his predecessors." - Time Magazine, 11/23/03

Bush Quote: 11/7/2003

"The economy's growing, new jobs are being created. There's an opportunity, and I hope you seize it. There's a wonderful, wonderful future ahead for people who at this moment think the future is a little dark." [Source: Bush/Cheney '04 Web site]

FACT:

Since President Bush's first tax cut in March 2001, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with a net job loss record. Additionally, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisors pledged that the President's "jobs and growth" package would create 1,836,000 new jobs by the end of 2003 as part of its pledge to create 5.5 million new jobs by 2004. But the economy added 221,000 jobs since the last tax cut went into effect, meaning that as the President appeared on Meet The Press, the White House had fallen 1,615,000 jobs short of their mark. - EPI, 2/4/03; Jobwatch.org

Bush Quote: 11/6/2003

"With the steady leadership of President Karzai, the people of Afghanistan are building a modern and peaceful government." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"[S]ecurity in large areas of Afghanistan has so deteriorated that U.S. and U.N. officials fear that plans to hold presidential elections in June may be in jeopardy." The security situation threatens to undermine the goals of the 2001 Bonn agreement which placed the U.N. in charge of supervising Afghanistan's transition to a constitutional democracy. - LA Times, 1

Bush Quote: 11/6/2003

“For too long, many people in (the Middle East) have been victims and subjects – they deserve to be active citizens.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

Yielding to protests from the repressivedictators in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Bush Admnistration "set aside plan to issue sweeping call for economic, political and cultural reform in Middle East." - NY Times, 3/12/04

At the time of the President's speech about Democracy in the Middle East, the Iraqi population had virtually no say in how their country was run. According to the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, two-thirds of the Governing Council – which was handpicked by the United States – no longer regularly attended meetings. According to members of the Iraqi Governing Council, the Coalition Authority refused to disclose how it was spending both Iraqi and American funds. Secrecy also surrounded the process of awarding contracts, and the Pentagon was running the Iraqi Media Network.

Bush Quote: 11/6/2003

“As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, looks like us.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

Yielding to protests from the repressive dictators in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the Bush Admnistration "set aside plan to issue sweeping call for economic, political and cultural reform in Middle East." - NY Times, 3/12/04

“The Coalition Provisional Authority continues to make a fundamental mistake in the way it interacts with the Iraqi people. The CPA seems to think that all wisdom is made in America.” - John McCain (D-AZ), Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations, 11/5/03

Bush Quote: 5/29/2003

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

“We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort…Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Bush Quote: 10/11/2002

"We're helping Afghanistan to claim its democratic future, and we're helping that nation to establish public order and safety...We will stay the course to help that country develop " [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

"This effort may fail. It will not fail because of a lack of desire, a lack of commitment by millions of Afghans, or a lack of bravery....Instead, it may fail because the administration has been unwilling to recognize the magnitude of the threats which we face and to direct sufficient political, military and financial resources to overcome them." - Testimony by Mark L. Schneider, Sr. Vice President, International Crisis Group, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on “Afghanistan – Continuing Challenges,” 5/12/04

Bush Quote: 11/2/2003

"The ‘Mission Accomplished’ sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff - they weren't that ingenious.” [Source: CBS Web site]

FACT:

“White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the [Mission Accomplished] idea, and that a White House advance staffer embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech…The staffer and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the 'Mission Accomplished' banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot.” - NY Times, 5/16/03

Bush Quote: 5/24/2004

"Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all -- to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations." [Source: White House Web site]
"We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government." - Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"The Bush administration's plans for a new caretaker government in Iraq would place severe limits on its sovereignty, including only partial command over its armed forces and no authority to enact new laws, according to administration officials." - IHT, 4/24/04

Bush Quote: 10/11/2000

"There's been too much finger pointingand too much name calling in Washington, D.C. I would like to unite this country to get an agenda done that will speak to the hopes and aspirations of the future." [Source: Debate transcript]

Fact:

"Bush's approach to leadership has invited Americans to take sides." - Time Magazine, 11/23/03

Bush Quote: 5/24/2004

"That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values."

FACTS:

"President Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods" of abuse that have been widespread in Iraq. - Newsweek, 5/24/04

"A Pentagon report set the framework for the use of torture" in Iraq. "A military lawyer who helped prepare the report said that political appointees heading the working group sought to assign to the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture." - WSJ, 6/7/04

Bush Quote: 5/17/2002

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

“White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” - ABC, 3/16/02

"A Congressional inquiry into intelligence activities before Sept. 11 found 12 reports over a seven-year period suggesting that terrorists might use airplanes as weapons." - NY Times, 4/4/04

Bush Quote: 5/11/2004

"Some say the No Child Left Behind Act doesn't provide enough money to meet our goals... People say, well, it's an unfunded mandate to put accountability systems in place. No, the accountability systems are largely funded by the federal government." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"This year alone, the Bush administration shortchanges American schools $9.4 billion under No Child Left Behind." - NY Times, 3/14/04

Bush Quote: 5/10/2004

“Our troops continue to face serious danger, and this government is giving them every means of protecting themselves and every means necessary to gain victory.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

“Many soldiers who are there say the Pentagon is failing to protect them with the best technology America has to offer…That has translated into a lack of armor… A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, there have been 142 casualties by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested.” - Newsweek, 5/3/04

“The military already has identified unmet funding needs, including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; $21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost in combat. The Marine Corps' unfunded budget requests include $40 million for body armor, lightweight helmets and other equipment.” - Washington Post, 4/21/04

Bush Quote: 5/2/2000

"[It is] going to be up for cities and states to make those decisions [about gay marriage]." [Source: CNN Web site]

FACT:

"President Bush called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage." - Sacramento Bee, 2/25/04

Bush Quote: 5/1/2004

"And by the way, the reports from Afghanistan, at least the ones I get, are very encouraging. You know, we've got -- people who have been there last yearand have been back this year report a different attitude. And they report people have got a sparkle in their eye." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"The overlookedwar continues with noend in sight. Narcotics trafficking is at an all-time high. If U.S. forces were to leave, the Taliban -- or something like it -- would regain power. The U.S. is lost in Afghanistan, bound to this wild country and unable to leave...The situation in Afghanistan, as laid outto me, looks nothing like a country alleged to be progressing toward representative democracy under American tutelage." - Robert Novak, 5/31/04

Bush Quote: 5/1/2003

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

"More U.S. soldiers have died in combat in Iraq since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, than died during main phase of the war, the U.S. military said on Tuesday." - Knight Ridder, 10/28/03 Bush Quote: 5/1/2003

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda." [Source: White House Web site]
FACT: "The occupation of Iraq has helped al-Qaeda recruit more members, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies." - BBC, 5/25/04

Bush Quote: 3/30/2004

"We don't need to be raising the federal gas tax. Gas taxes would hurt the economy. There are some -- there are some in the other party in Washington who would like to raise gas taxes. I think it would be wrong. I think it would be damaging to the economy, not positive to the economy." [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States." - Dick Cheney, 1986

"Gasoline taxes, by contrast, actually improve incentives in various ways. If you have ever been stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic, you have probably wished there were fewer cars on the road. A gasoline tax would help to accomplish this by encouraging people to car-pool, take public transportation, or live closer to work." - Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers (Appointed by Bush), 5/24/99

Bush Quote: 3/27/2001

"Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

The $5.6 trillion ten-year surplus projected in January 2001, as Bush took office, is gone, supplanted with at least $5.2 trillion in deficits over the next ten years -- a fiscal decline of $10.8 trillion in just three years. - CBPP, 10/28/03

Bush Quote: 3/20/2004

"We will not fail the Iraqi people, who have placed their trust in us. Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"Is it possible it won't work? Yes." - Donald Rumsfeld, on the possibility of failure in Iraq, 5/12/04

Bush Quote: 3/17/2004

"When you hear people say, we cut individual income taxes, or tax on the rich, really what you ought to put in your mind is these were taxes to help the entrepreneurial class of America. Small businesses benefit." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

Only 3.7% of small businesses are affected by the top tax rate cuts that made up the bulk of the President's income tax cuts. Most small business owners "would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's tax package than to benefit." - CBPP, 5/3/01

Bush Quote: 3/17/2000

"What is even more important is the duty of public officials to obey the existing laws, and I'm afraid your own record does not inspire confidence." [Source: AP transcript]

FACT:

The President and Vice President have both retained lawyers and have been questioned in a criminal investigation into whether administration officials were involved in “what could be a violation of federal law” when they deliberately leaked the name of a covert CIA operative. - CBS News, 6/24/04; NY Times 9/29/03

Bush Quote: 3/16/2004

"This year we're goingto put out a drug discount card for our seniors that will save between 10 to 20 percent off their drugs, which is positive." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"The analysis finds that the prices available with the new Medicare discount drug cards are far higher than the prices available in Canada and the prices negotiated by the federal government on the Federal Supply Schedule, and are no lower than the prices currently available to individuals who do not have the cards." - Minority House Report, April, 2004

Bush Quote: 3/16/2004

"Inherent in the health savings accounts are savings, savings for employers, savings for employees. In other words, one way to deal with the cost of health care is to push for health savings accounts."

FACT:

"Sharply higher health insurance deductibles may hit workers in the next two years as employers embrace newly created tax-free Health Savings Accounts." - USA Today, 4/26/04

Bush Quote: 3/11/2004

"Over a million jobs were lost because of the [9/11] attack." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"White House officials were unable to point to any specific information that supports a direct link between massive job losses and the attacks." While one White House spokeswoman claimed that the President's statements were "supported by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)," that agency's associate commissioner "said BLS has not compiled any specific study on jobs which were lost specifically because of the Sept. 11 attacks." - Bureau of National Affairs, 3/22/04

Bush Quote: 3/7/2002

"America is ushering in a responsibility era...and this new culture must include a renewed sense of corporate responsibility. If you lead a corporation, you have a responsibility to serve your shareholders, to be honest with your employees." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

After Enron and other corporate scandals rose corporate governance to the forefront of the national policy debate "O'Neill and Greenspan devised a plan to make CEOs accountable." But, O'Neill reports, "Bush went with a more modest plan because 'the corporate crowd' complained loudly and Bush could not buck that constituency." - Time Magazine, 1/11/04

Bush Quote: 3/6/2003

"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for [a U.N.] vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." - Washington Post, 3/18/03

Bush Quote: 3/6/2003

"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"On March 17, 2003, with a possible resolution waiting in the wings, Bush announced he would not call for a vote, saying, 'The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.'" - Slate, 9/23/03

Bush Quote: 3/6/2003

"I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"The inspections are not getting us there, the president said, getting down to business. The U.N. inspectors were just sort of stumbling around, and Hussein was showing no intention of real compliance. 'I really think I'm going to have to do this.' The president said he had made up his mind on war. The United States should go to war." - 1/13/04, from Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, reprinted in Washington Post, 4/18/04

Bush Quote: 6/18/2004

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." [Source: Washington Post, 6/18/04]

FACTS:

“The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.” - Washington Post, 6/17/04

"We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." - Bush Weapons Inspector David Kay, Boston Globe, 6/16/04

Bush Quote: 6/17/2004

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

"Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 — the day the war in Iraq began — Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'" - USA Today, 6/16/04

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001." - President Bush, 5/1/03

“[Iraq is] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 9/14/03

Bush Quote: 6/16/2003

"So when you hear the -- hear me talk about reducing individual tax rates, the American people have got to understand, that means capital infusion into the small businesses of America." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"President Bush's proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 would severely cut loans to small businesses and reduce funding to the Small Business Administration by over 10 percent." - Washington Times, 2/3/04

Bush Quote: 6/14/2004

"You can go to http://www.medicare.gov/. It's not all that hard. And there will be all kinds of information available to you." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"In Rep. Slaughter's district, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee…surveyed ten independent pharmacies. Information on the Medicare.gov web site was inaccurate for every single pharmacy." - Letter from Government Reform Minority Office, 7/6/04

Bush Quote: 10/11/2001

"I think we should learn a lesson from the previous engagement in the Afghan area that we should not just simply leave after a military objective has been achieved." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:

"Insecurity caused by terrorist activities, factional fights and drug related crime remain the major concern of Afghans today...Attacks against non-governmental organizations is contributing to the slowing of reconstruction...Individuals and communities suffer from abuses of their basic rights by local commanders and factional leaders...[There are] terrorist attacks from suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda." - U.N. Report, 11/11/03

Bush Quote: 6/13/2000:

"Something will happen when I'm president. As soon as I take office I will begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital." [Source: NJDC Web site]

FACT:

"Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the 'Act'), I hereby determine that it is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States to suspend for a period of six months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act." - President Bush memorandum delaying congressionally mandated relocation of US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, 6/11/01

Bush Quote: 6/2/2004

"We are using all elements of our national power to deny terrorists the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"In his fiscal year 2005 budget request to Congress, Bush did not substantially increase funding for [nonproliferation] programs and actually proposed cuts to the Department of Defense component" of a program to safeguard or destroy nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons abroad. - Arms Control Association, 3/04

Bush Quote: 6/1/2004

"I can continue calling upon Congress to pass the energy bill and to make sure the American consumers are being treated fairly. What you're seeing at the gas pumps is something I've been warning for two years, and that is that we're hooked on foreign sources of energy and that if we don't become less dependent on foreign sources of energy we will find higher prices at our gas pumps. It's precisely what happened." [Source: Fox News Web site]

FACT:

"The Bush plan…would have no impact on energy prices, and no practical effect on U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil. Who would benefit? The oil, coal and nuclear industries that shoveled millions of dollars into Bush campaign coffers." - NRDC, 5/17/01

Bush Quote: 6/1/2004

"Had we drilled in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) back in the mid-'90s, we'd be producing an additional million barrels a day, which would be taking enormous pressure off the American consumer." [Source: Fox News Web site]

FACT:

"The U.S. Geological Service says the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- is roughly 3.2 billion barrels, or only a six-month U.S. supply." - NRDC

Bush Quote: 6/1/2004

"I haven't had any extensive conversations with [Chalabi]...I don't remember anybody walking into my office saying, Chalabi says this is the way it's going to be in Iraq." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"Right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment." - President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/13/04

Bush Quote: 6/1/2003

"Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

“We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort. Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Bush Quote: 7/14/2003

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. The inspectors did not find that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program." - Arms Control Association Web site

Bush Quote: 1/29/2002

"Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term….” [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

"The federal deficit will hit a record $477 billion this year and get worse if lawmakers cut taxes or increase spending, the Congressional Budget Office projected Monday." - CNN, 1/26/04

"The idea that this is manageable or that we are going to grow our way out of the problem is just flat false." - U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, LA Times, 10/7/03

"The U.S. government's budget deficit came under fire on Wednesday from two global institutions (OECD and the IMF) saying a plan to halve the record gap by 2009 may not be enough to stop long-term damage to the world economy." - Reuters, 4/14/04

Bush Quote: 1/29/2002

“When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: Jobs.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

The economy has lost 2.2 million payroll jobs since January 2001, giving Bush the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover. Currently, "job growth remains well below par." - AP, 2/11/04; NY Times, 2/22/04

Bush Quote: 1/29/2002

“We’ll increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters….” [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

"With deficit-stricken states unable to assist municipalities with homeland defense, many large police and fire departments say they have been forced to postpone the purchase of protective suits, biochemical detectors and communications equipment that would be used to respond to a terrorist attack. And a recent National League of Cities survey of 322 cities finds that 25 percent are cutting the ranks of their police forces or plan to shortly for economic reasons." - AFL-CIO Report

"President Bush's new budget would cut by one-third the money that thousands of fire departments rely on to keep their communities safe. The nation's firefighters are outraged by the White House plan, which would take $250 million away from grants that help rural agencies buy firetrucks, protective clothing, breathing apparatus, water tanks and other equipment." - Copley News Service, 2/6/04

"The International Association of Fire Fighters and Congress wanted more federal funding for firefighters [after 9/11], which the administration opposed." - The Hill, 3/11/04

Bush Quote: 1/29/2000

“The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.” [Source: CNN Web site]

FACT:

"After a visit with a Saudi envoy, the White House indicated that 'President Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds” about cutting oil production.'" - Knight Ridder, 4/1/04

Bush Quote: 1/28/2003

"Americans are doing the work of compassion every day -- visiting prisoners, providing shelter for battered women, bringing companionship to lonely seniors. These good works deserve our praise; they deserve our personal support; and when appropriate, they deserve the assistance of the federal government.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"The 2003 Bush Budget proposed cutting $88 million out of HHS Community Service programs – most of which is a $75 million cut (24%) cut to the Community Service Community Services Block Grant Program. Bush is also requesting a $90 million (20%) cut to AmeriCorps, which includes USA Freedom Corps, and an overall $39 million cut to the Corporation for National and Community Service." - House Democrats Web site

Bush Quote: 1/28/2003

"Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam Hussein] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board has concluded that the White House made a questionable claim in January's State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain nuclear materials because of its desperation to show that Hussein had an active program to develop nuclear weapons, according to a well-placed source familiar with the board's findings." - Washington Post, 12/24/03

Bush Quote: 1/28/2003

"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evadeinspectors." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

The key defector "failed a second polygraph test and in May 2002, intelligence agencies were warned that the information was unreliable." - Telegraph, 2/19/04
"The Bush administration's prewar assertion that Saddam Hussein had a fleet of mobile labs that could produce bioweapons rested largely on information from an Iraqi defector...who was never interviewed by U.S. intelligence officers." - Washington Post, 3/5/04

Bush Quote: 1/28/2003

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. “Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere” made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation (7/20/03). In fact, “CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference” removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. - Washington Post, 7/13/03

Bush Quote: 1/28/2003

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” -Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Bush Quote: 1/27/2002

"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." [Source: AP]

FACT:

President Bush has not been to war. Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guards between May 1968 and October 1973 and never left the country in relation to his duties. He was discharged 8 months before his six year term expired. "During his fifth year as a guardsman, Bush's records show no sign he appeared for duty." Such a "war" - Boston Globe, 5/23/00

Bush Quote: 1/26/2000

"What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [Source: Debate transcript]

FACT:

With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." - Miami Herald, 4/1/04

Bush Quote: 1/24/2002

"I have no ambition whatsoever to use [the war on terror or 9/11] as a political issue." [Source: BBC]

FACTS:

"An internal White House document outlining President Bush's re-election agenda starts with "War on terrorism (Con't)" and homeland security." - AP, 12/29/02

"President Bush's top political adviser said today that Republicans will make the president's handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's midterm elections. 'We can go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America,' Karl Rove said at the Republican National Committee meeting." - Washington Post, 1/19/02

"Using unusually pointed language, President Bush's chief political adviser Karl Rove suggested Republicans should run on the message that they are the party who can be trusted to successfully fight the war against terrorism." - ABC News, 1/18/02

"A White House aide told [PakistaniLieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq] last spring that 'it would be best if the arrest of killing of [any] HVT [High Value Target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July' – the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston." - The New Republic, 7/7/04

Bush Quote:

"The Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook steps to build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material." There has been no evidence of "mobile biological production efforts." Iraq "did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991." - The Kay Report, 10/2/03

Bush Quote: 1/18/2003

"[The 2003 tax cut will] give 23 million small business owners an average tax cut of $2,042." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT:

"Nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less" than the average amount the President cited, with more than half of all small business owners receiving $500 or less. - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/21/03

Bush Quote 1/17/2003

“Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are, should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.” [Source: White House Web site]

FACTS:

On the same day President Bush made this comment, "The Department of Veterans Affairs announced that it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system" to 164,000 veterans. - Washington Post, 1/17/03

The Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement after the President introduced his 2005 budget calling the proposal "disgraceful" and saying, "the president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration." VFW Commander-In-Chief Edward Banas said "the funding package is a disgrace and a sham."

With the Bush Administration chronically underfunding veterans medical care, "Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors. The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments." - UPI, 10/17/03

Bush Quote: 1/16/2003

"For the sake of affordable and accessible health care in America, we must have a limit on what they call non-economic damages." [Source: White House Web site]

BUSH QUOTE: 1/16/2003
"For the sake of affordable and accessible health care in America, we must have a limit on what they call non-economic damages." [Source: White House Web site]

FACT: "Even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small...the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency. - CBO report, 1/8/04written by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

Bush Quote: 10/11/2000

"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war." [Source: Debate transcript]

Fact:

"In Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are also working together to build a democracy." - President Bush, 11/6/03

That's enough. You get the picture. Do I expect everyone who visits to read all this? No. But mayhaps they'll get a clearer picture of what we're in for if George Bush gets four more years in office. Certainly don't expect his campaign promises to be anywhere near fulfilled.

©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre

2004-08-19T15:48:00.000-07:00

JEB AND GEORGE - ACT II

Jeb Bush is ready to throw the 2004 Florida presidential election results to his brother again. That’s a pretty heady statement, but let’s take a look at the facts. First, from the 2000 election in Florida.

Florida has a large percentage of black voters, most of whom vote Democratic. The easiest way to swing the election there to George Bush would be to invalidate or eliminate black votes. There are a couple of ways you can do that.

1. Don’t allow black people to vote. Is this possible in this day and age in our country? Indeed it is. It’s also very difficult to verify. No one can be sure of the number of people that were turned away from the polls in Florida or were deprived of their right to vote. But we do know that the Florida attorney general’s office received over 3,600 allegations, over 2,600 complaints, and over 1,000 letters stating that the caller or writer was restricted from voting in the 2000 election.

Both the Democrat and Republican parties received many complaints from Floridians who were restricted from or experienced difficulty when attempting to vote.

A commission was set up to study the Florida voting irregularities. Their report concluded that credible evidence shows many Floridians were denied the right to vote and that these denials fell squarely on persons of color.

2. Spoil the ballots of blacks who do vote. An analysis of the incidence of spoiled ballots (those cast but not counted) shows a correlation between the number of registered African American voters and the rate at which ballots were spoiled. The higher the percentage of blacks, the higher the chance of the vote being spoiled.

Thirty-four percent of the variation in the percentage of spoiled ballots across counties can be explained by the size of the African American population in the counties. Twenty-eight percent of the variation in the percentage of spoiled ballots is explained when considering the percentage of the population that is a member of a minority group. This is way above national averages. It is obvious that race is one factor in explaining why ballots were spoiled in the Florida election.

3. The Florida mandated purge list. Enacted in 1998, a statute required the Division of Elections to contract with a private firm to purge from voter files any deceased person, duplicate registrations, individuals who are declared mentally incompetent to vote, and convicted felons without civil rights restoration.

Many people appeared on this list inaccurately. In Miami-Dade county alone, 5,762 names appeared on the list. Of these, 327 appealed successfully and were returned to the roles. But another 485 names were identified after the election as persons who had had their rights restored, or shouldn’t have been on the list in the first place. 65.4% of them were black.

The commission unequivocally supported the fact that African Americans were denied the right to vote in Florida in 2000. It would not have taken many of these votes to have given the election to Al Gore.

Will things change in Florida for this year’s election? According to Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, the answer is a loud NO.

Florida’s new voting machines provide no paper trail as to who voted for whom. Florida officials could easily have mandated that such machines must be used, but they did not. Instead, Republican leaders in private emails to their constitutes strongly suggested that they use absentee ballots to ensure their votes be counted this year. One wonders why?

Recently Flordia state officials drew up another purge list and attempted to keep it secret. When a judge forced release of the list, it turned out to be just as corrupt as the two used in year 2000. Once again, many people were wrongly disenfranchised – mostly African Americans. Very few whites or Hispanics were on the list.

Florida State Police officers have been going to the homes of elderly black voters, including participants in get-out-the-vote operations, and interrogated them as part of what the state says is a fraud investigation. But there is little information from Florida officials about the investigation and it looks remarkably like an attempt to intimidate African-American voters.

I smell an upcoming foul again by the “Brothers of the Bush.”

©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre

2004-08-15T19:45:00.000-07:00

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING ON GAY MARRIAGE

Time to discuss the California Supreme Court ruling concerning gay marriage. As you know, the justices ruled against Mayor Gavin Newsome. The court stated he had no authority to start issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco. It also annulled over 4,000 same-sex marriages that took place in California.

Believe me, this is not the great victory that the Christian right thinks it is. (Where were the outcries concerning “activist judges”?) It is simply one step along the path in testing a questionable law by a public official and the citizens of California. That this is true is shown by the fact that the Court did not go on to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage. This has been reserved for another time and place. The Court itself stated that, “Should the state ban on gay marriages be judicially overturned as unconstitutional, same-sex couples would then be free to enter valid marriages.”

As always though, the Courts decision had an adverse effect on the innocent people involved. In an enormous case of collateral damage, 8,000+ people saw their marriages come to an end. Forget the imposition on their families caused by lost health care insurance. Forget the higher taxes they will have to pay because of no longer being married. Forget the children who will no longer have the legality of two parents to protect them. Instead, concentrate on the pain that must have been felt by the couples involved.

Many of these couples waited 10, 30, some over 50 years to be able to legally say they were married. They can no longer do so. They will have to wait longer. Although the state will refund the money involved that was paid for their licenses, most will not turn them in to the administration to collect their cash. They will keep them were they now reside, in a frame on the wall of their home.

The bottom line is that marriage isn’t just about benefits, it’s about the love and commitment between two people that is recognized by the government of the country in which one resides. No matter what your opinion of gay marriage, you should be able to feel the pain of these people being told that they are no longer married. How would you feel if the government sent you a letter and said that due to a court ruling your marriage is null and void? That’s exactly what’s happening to these people right now.

To put the California Supreme Court ruling into perspective you should read the Superior Court ruling of the State of Washing for King County v Heather Andersen and Leslie Christian in its entirety. I have never read a more positive document concerning gay marriage and believe me, I’ve read a lot of them. Here are a few tidbits:

“In our pluralistic society the moral views of the majority can never provide the sole basis for legislation. It is clear that Americans have differing views as to what morality requires in the definition of marriage. It is not for our secular government to choose between religions and take moral or religious sides in such a debate.”

“It is true that marriage has long been defined as the union of one man and one woman. It is equally true that the shape of marriage has drastically changed over the years. It took a very long time for the courts to break down the traditional stereotypes that relegated women to second class status in society and in the marital relationship. As the Massachusetts Supreme Court has noted, ‘it is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that is what it historically has been.’ While not to be ignored, the backward view toward tradition must neither be treated as binding nor allowed to be binding. Serving tradition, for the sake of tradition alone, is not a compelling state interest.”

“Some declaim that the institutions of marriage and family are weak these days and, in fact, stand threatened. Any trial court judge who regularly hears divorce, child abuse and domestic violence cases deeply shares this concern. It is not difficult, however, to identify both the causes of the present situation and the primary future threat. They come from inside the institution, not outside of it. Not to be too harsh, but they are a shortage of commitment and an excess of selfishness. Before the Court stand eight couples who credibly represent that they are ready and willing to make the right kind of commitment to partner and family for the right kinds of reasons. All they ask is for the state to make them able.”

“The laws never have placed a requirement on marriage that the parties procreate nor do they prohibit from marriage those who are unable or disinclined to procreate. Many families today are created through adoption, the foster parent system and assisted reproduction technologies. This last point is well illustrated by some of the plaintiffs who, thanks to government recognition of the fact that their sexual orientation is no bar to good parenting, are presently able to enjoy family lives with children.”

“After long and careful reflection, it is this Court’s firm conviction that the effect of today’s ruling truly favors both the interest of individual liberty and that of future generations. As to the conflicting legal principles at issue, it is true this Court’s favoring the equal rights of all citizens may place the judicial branch of the government briefly at odds with the legislative. That this may be so is not at all regrettable. Rather it is fully consistent with sound constitutional principle, with the wise structural design of our government and with the realities of the dynamic of healthy social progress.”

These statements, of course, are from the Honorable William L. Downing, who presided over the recent gay marriage case in Washington State. It would be very difficult to disagree with Judge Downing’s decision. I honestly can’t see any appellate court in the United States ruling otherwise.

©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre

2004-08-13T17:42:00.000-07:00

SENSITIVITY 101

So many things to talk about today – which should I bring up? First there’s the Court decision in California - who didn’t realize that was coming? This has been covered very well in a lot of other journals though so I think I’ll pass on that for a couple of days. Then there’s the ‘retirement’ of New Jersey’s now out of the closet gay governor. I think I’ll hang on to this one until the smoke clears. No, today I think I’ll talk about Vice President Cheney’s disparaging remarks about John Kerry. I always enjoy it when the Bushie administration buries itself in pig shit up to his pointed big ears.

I’ll bring you up to date in case you haven’t been paying attention with all the goings on lately. Last week at a Kerry conference with minority journalists the Demo candidate said, “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.”

Mr. Cheney immediately jumped at the remark stating as only Mr. Cheney can, “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive wars. Nor did President Roosevelt or Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. As our opponents see it, the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. We, the American people, know better.”

Yes, Mr. Cheney, we, the American people, DO know better. We know that sensitive means being capable of being stimulated by external agents, such as CIA Director George Tenant’s report to President Bush entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which warned that al Qaida might be planning to hijack airplanes. A li’l sensitivity might have been a big help there, no?

We also know that sensitivity means being delicately aware of the attitudes and feelings of others, for instance our NATO partners, and those Middle East countries that helped us in the last Iraqi war. Had President Bush and Mr. Cheney been a bit more sensitive, we might not have had to go it alone in Iraq this time.

Being sensitive would allow one to be capable of indicating minute differences, such as if our intelligence sources showed there were really weapons of mass destruction or not. Being capable of that might have kept us out of the Iraqi mess totally. But it’s hard to be sensitive when you’re so cock-sure that you’ll read anything you want into intelligence sources to prove your own misdirected point.

Also, Mr. Cheney, we Americans know our history a bit better than you give us credit for. We know that President Roosevelt was sensitive enough to the wishes of the American people to keep us out of WWII until we were attacked by the Japanese and had war declared upon us by the Germans. General Eisenhower had to be super sensitive so as not to offend any of his Allies. Case in point – choosing Montgomery over Patton in some cases to quell British anxieties. Yes, and General MacArthur. Wasn’t he the one who wanted to nuke the North Koreans? How many millions of people would that have destroyed? And would Russia have retaliated as soon as they could? Thank God Truman was sensitive.

As for Abe, he had to be sensitive enough to balance the need to reunite the Union with the opposition to the draft. Not all northerners wanted to fight for the black man. There were riots in New York and other northern cities against Mr. Lincoln’s war. How easy would it have been to be insensitive and just let the South have it’s own way? And Grant was much more sensitive than say, General Sheridan, who’s insensitivity during his march through the South after it was all but defeated caused the destruction of property, lives, and morale that probably set back the reconstruction of the Union for years. Grant never allowed such tactics in his Army of the Potomac.

So Mr. Cheny, we Americans would much rather have sensitive leaders than insensitive ones like we have now. The world would be a safer place, the economy would be in much better shape, and Americans wouldn’t be torn apart by fear motivated ideals wrongfully labeled as “Christian.”

In the words of John Kerry’s wife, Teresa – "SHOVE IT."

©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre

2004-08-10T14:59:00.000-07:00

KATHY PARKER SAYS JUDGES CREATED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE

My dear, sweet, wondrous, favorite li’l columnist, Kathy Parker is at it again. Her most recent article runs under the headline, “Judges, not GOP, created same-sex marriage issue.” Sweet Kathy, of course, was so elated upon hearing of the landslide vote in Missouri to include discrimination in the state constitution, she wet her chair. Sweet Kathy is a right wing columnist with self proclaimed gay friends who follows the Bushie line that “activist judges” are “manufacturing” the push for gay/lesbian marriage.

She says, “The fact that so many voters, both Democrat and Republican, turned out in Missouri suggests that Americans want to have a voice in the marriage debate.”

Sweet li’l Kathy must live in a different America than I do.

You see, Kathy sweetly believes that America should be run by the majority and minorities be damned. Minorities in her America would have no recourse in the court against discrimination and bigotry. It doesn’t matter that good, clean, hard working, people get hurt in the process. The majority should get there way no matter who is harmed.

In Sweet Kathy’s America, women would never have been allowed to vote because activist judges gave them that right by recognizing the fact that the US Constitution says that EVERY citizen of the United States should have a right to vote.

Blacks would only be allowed to vote IF they qualified as intelligent enough through a discriminating and bigoted registration test, which most would fail. They would also still be knee-deep in segregation, keeping to the back of the bus, going to segregated schools, and forget being involved with politics, or playing big league baseball. The majority didn’t want those things and blacks would have had no recourse in the courts of our country had the majority had it’s way as Sweet Kathy so charmingly suggests they shouldn’t have – being a minority.

Back alley abortions would be a mainstay in Sweet Kathy’s America because the courts would have been silenced and there would NEVER have been a Roe v Wade ruling granting women the right to decide what happens to their own body.

According to Sweet li’l Kathy Parker, “Churches urged congregations to vote and, as even non-believers grudgingly might concede, prayer has been known to work wonders.” Two points on this. First, Churches involved in politics should have their tax-exempt certification removed. Second, God could care less about a political campaign, especially one where His own people are being harmed by the outcome. (Yes, Kathy, gays and lesbians are God’s people too.)

Obviously, Sweet li’l Kathy must have slept through her civics class in high school cause she isn’t educated enough to understand the reason America’s judicial system is in place. The courts don’t exist to underscore the will of the majority, Kathy. They’re there to protect the rights of ALL American citizens to ensure that they are treated EQUALLY in accordance with our Constitution.

In other words, Kathy dearest, my sweet li’l columnist with many gay friends, coming out against the courts is like coming out against America itself. Who would keep an eye on the majority if we had the kind of court system you would install in this country?

At the same time as the Missouri vote came in, Judge William Downing in King County Superior Court in Washington state supported gay marriage by deciding:

"On the one hand, it may seem odd in the year 2004 to be taking a fresh judicial look at the institution of marriage, an institution that has served society well for many centuries with its presumptively inherent limitation to heterosexuals. ... Yet, on the other hand, it can also be seen as entirely natural to find ourselves engaged in this exercise. As time marches inexorably on, human society -- its collectively felt needs and its ability and inclination to provide for those needs -- evolves.

"Certainly these plaintiffs have been carefully handpicked to serve as suitable standard-bearers for the cause of same-sex marriage. Their lives reflect hard work, professional achievement, religious faith and a willingness to stand up for their beliefs. ...

"They are law-abiding, taxpaying model citizens. They include exemplary parents, adoptive parents, foster parents and grandparents.

"They well know what it means to make a commitment and to honor it. ... There is no worthwhile institution that they would dishonor, much less destroy.

"After long and careful reflection, it is this Court's firm conviction that the effect of today's ruling truly favors both the interest of individual liberty and that of future generations."

Does this sound like activism or does it sound like a vote for liberty and equality? Please note, Sweet Kathy that Judge Downing says there is NO institution (marriage) that gays would dishonor, much less destroy if they married, as you and so many others have been saying repeatedly in the past months.

In all the time I’ve heard that argument from the majority, NO ONE has put forth one shred of evidence how allowing gays and lesbians to marry would effect the institution of marriage in any way. Without that evidence, Kathy, how would you expect judges to rule? You are correct in saying, “No amount of money or political strategy is likely to change either (people’s beliefs) or the will to preserve (marriage between a man and a woman).” When bigoted ideas are implanted in people, only our court system can remove them. Has Vermont fallen apart since gays were given the right to Civil Unions there? No. Has marriage disintegrated in Massachusetts since gays were allowed to marry? No. How about in Canada? No.

You’re position holds no truth, Sweet Kathy. You and those like you are supporting nothing but discrimination and bigotry. You would change America for the worse. Our court system will not allow that to happen. Thank God.

Sorry Kathy.

©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre

2004-08-06T17:13:00.000-07:00

IT BEGINS

Set to air in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin today is a Repubo ad featuring members of a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Isn’t it amazing how the word “truth” is slapped around now-a-days?

These veterans appearing in the anti-Kerry ad accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and of betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.

“When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry,” Larry Thurlow says in the ad. He claims to have witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning his Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. In case you’re wondering, no, Thurlow didn’t serve on Kerry’s swift boat. You know, the one where his actual crew members claim the man was a true hero and saved their lives.

After previewing the ad Arizona’s senior Republican Senator, John McCain, immediately voiced his opposition to it and called on the White House to condemn it. McCain said, “I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat Kerry commanded. Many of the crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.” Later he added, “It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me.” McCain knows what he’s talking about, but you might not be familiar with the story.

I think we can all agree that this attack on John Kerry’s honor simply reeks with a horrible odor. Indeed, I’ve always said that an arse by any other name smells the same. In this case, the arse belongs to one Karl Rove, Senior Political Advisor to President Bush. You know how detectives look for the “smoking gun”? In the case of political dirty tricks, you look for the “smelly butt.”

In February of 2000, John McCain’s Straight Talk Express was coming off a strong victory in the New Hampshire primary and moving toward South Carolina with a full head of steam. Almost immediately, South Carolina Repubos began receiving calls like this:

Caller: Hi. I’m calling from an independent polling company and I was wondering if I could have a minute of your time to conduct a survey.

Voter: Uh…sure.

Caller: Great! If you knew that Senator John McCain was a cheat and a liar and a fraud, and that he fathered an illegitimate black child, would you be more likely to vote for him or less likely to vote for him?

Voter: Hmmm. Probably less.

Suffice it to say that these calls were not made from an independent polling company. Rove knew how to steal an election without leaving any fingerprints. Other rumors about McCain surfaced that were circulated at the time included that he was pro-abortion (no), that his wife had outstanding arrest warrants for giving alcohol to minors (no) that he was gay (no), and that he had voted for the largest tax increase ever (no). They even paid a group of vets to claim that McCain received special treatment during his imprisonment in Vietnam.

The Repubos swore on a stack of Bibles that they had nothing to do with these attacks, but it doesn’t take a mental giant to figure out the only person who could have benefited from these vicious lies was George W. Bush. When Bush was asked when he would hit McCain’s soft spots, his reply was, “I’m going to. I’m not going to do it on TV.” This was captured on C-SPAN on February 12th when Bushie didn’t realize the camera was running.

Sound familiar? Keep watching. The Vietnam Vets were only the opening salvo of a dirty tricks campaign that Dick Nixon would have been proud to have been part of.
©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre

2004-07-31T15:37:00.000-07:00

THE CHRISTIAN COALITION: ARE THEY REALLY CHRISTIAN?

Rev. Pat Robertson, Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rev. James Kennedy and their followers have one thing in common. They want to help the Christian Coalition remake the United States of America into a Christian Theocracy. What’s that? It would be a Taliban like society where the nation’s courts (including the Supreme Court), state legislatures, schools, Congress, and the White House would be overwhelmingly populated by men who subscribe to the theories of the Christian Coalition.

What would America be like under such rule? Gays and Lesbians would be driven underground or forced into “treatment” for their “illness” by commandment spouting judges like Justice Antonin Scalia who would overturn the Texas Sodomy decision. Capitol punishment would be routine and speedy, leaving St. Peter to sort out any mistakes at the gate. Women would have little say over their bodies as Roe v. Wade would be overturned. In fact, women would have little to no say in government whatsoever, as they would be forced into a submissive role under the headship of their husbands. The Bible would become the immutable authority on everything from zoning laws to foreign policy.

Not since McCarthyism and George Wallace have American Civil Liberties been under such an attack. In 1992, Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. In 2000, they took over the Oval Office. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, has said, “We have enough votes to run the country. We are going to take over.”

“It's time to get Jesus into the judicial mix,” Mathew Staver of Liberty Council says. “Now we're working to establish Liberty University School of Law, which will open its doors in August 2004. We are going to teach lawyers to think in a biblical, Christian world view. They will indeed expand this area of litigation. Those students will in turn one day become instructors at other law schools, and, most important, they'll become judges,” he promises.

But the question begs, is this really what Christ would have his people do? If Jesus had wanted a Theocracy in this world, it would have been very easy for him to have established one when he was alive in Israel. In fact, the Bible tells us that the Jews on many occasions tried to make him King. But Jesus refused saying, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Do you think that Jesus would want tax breaks for the rich when he told the rich of his day to, “sell everything you own, give it to the poor, and follow me,”? The Christian Coalition wants to rule over others, but Jesus said, “I will tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” These “Christians” will tell you that the idea of separation between Church and State is a lie, yet Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Are people who say things like, “Many of the people who supported Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together,” speaking as Jesus would have spoken? Jesus not only said, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” He also said, “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

The Federalist Society, part and parcil to the Christian Coalition, was formed twenty years ago in reaction to the powers the Supreme Court was granting the federal government. It is a network of lawyers, elected officials and scholars who want to free corporations from government regulations. It is hostile to civil rights, environmental protections, worker safety laws, a separation between church and state and more.

Some prominent leaders of the Religious Right play a dominant role in the Federalist Society. For example former President of the Christian Coalition, Donald Hodel is a board member. Twenty four of President Bush's top cabinet members and most of his court nominations are members of the Federalist Society. The list includes John Ashcroft, Attorney General; Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy; Gail Norton, Secretary of the Interior; and Theodore Olson, Solicitor General. Other notable members are Justices Scalia and Thomas, Orrin Hatch, and Kenneth Starr.

Do not be misled. Unless we Americans react and react swiftly, these people will obtain their goal and America will be changed forever. The Federalist Society and The Christian Coalition do not represent God. They are not Christians. They preach fear and hate in order to gain what they want.

“I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation.”
-Pat Robertson

“Homosexuality is Satan’s diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.”
-Jerry Falwell

“There ought to be limits to freedom.”
- George W. Bush

The apostle John wrote, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear…If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.” Clearly, by anyone’s reading of that scripture, these so called Christians do not love God because they obviously do not love their brother.

Hold men such as Senator Bill Frist, TN; Mitch McConnell, KY; Rick Santorum, PA; Bob Bennett, UT; Kay Bailey Hutchinson, TX; Jon Kyle, AZ; and George Allen, VA, accountable for their votes. Each one of them has a 100% score from the Christian Coalition, which means they voted with the Coalition’s agenda every single time. We need to take back America from these unchristian, un-American individuals. Vote in 2004 and 2006 against these preachers of fear.

©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre

2004-07-29T15:38:00.000-07:00

A DISTINCT DANGER

For over 200 years, the United States of America has held the ideal of religious freedom and the separation of church and state to be two of the fundamental pillars of our Constitution.

George Washington said, “The United States should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.”

John Adams said, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Thomas Jefferson said, “History furnishes no example of a priest ridden people maintaining a free civil government. Their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”

With the coming election of 2004, we sit on the brink of seeing not only the Constitution of the United States destroyed, but also the freedoms contained therein that every American holds close to their hearts. How can I say this? Because our country is heading down a road from which there will be no return if we do not act now.

The symptoms are visible to anyone who takes the time to look around. First, we had the Supreme Court of the United States select the president of this country on a 5-4 vote only four short years ago. Think it can’t happen again? If George Bush is reselected, the vote next time will not be so close.

The Senate introduced a Constitutional amendment that for the first time in US history would discriminate against a selected minority. The only reason it did not make it through was because the majority of Republicans in the Senate still do not subscribe to the views of the religious right. This is not the case in the House of Representatives.

In the House, bill after bill is being introduced by right wing Republicans aimed at strengthening their power and making it easier for them to be re-elected. Here are just a few:

H.R. 2357: In a bill drafted by attorneys working for Pat Robinson’s American Center for Law and Justice, the religious right took aim at campaign finance reform. The bill would have allowed churches to collect money for political campaigns. It was supported by the most of the same right wing organizations that supported the Federal Marriage Amendment including, The American Family Association, The Family Research Council, Focus On The Family, and TV preachers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

The bill was narrowly defeated on October 2, 2002, by a vote of 178-239. Since that time, the religious right have increased their number by 18 representatives in the elections of 2002. The bill was reintroduced in January of 2003 and today sits in the House Ways and Means Committee with 160 sponsors, awaiting an assured majority for passage.

H.R. 3799: The Constitution of the United States does not mention the word “God” anywhere within its pages. The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 was introduced on the House floor on February 11th, 2004. It would ban all federal court cases challenging state-sponsored acknowledgement of “God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” It would also overturn all existing rulings in this area and establish a mechanism for impeaching federal judges who dare to uphold church-state separation.

H.R. 2045: “The Ten Commandments Act” has 116 sponsors in the House. It would deny federal courts the ability to hear cases involving government display of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols.

H.R. 3313: The bill requiring no federal court to be able to hear arguments against the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed the House early this month and is on its way to the Senate, where it will probably suffer defeat. If, however, in November’s election, the Senate strengthens its right wing Republican membership, you can bet the House will reintroduce this bill and pass all like-minded pending legislation. That is, IF the House regains the control that right wing Republicans now enjoy.

If George Bush gets re-elected with a strong majority in the House and Senate, America is in deep trouble. No less then three members of the Supreme Court are due to retire, most likely within the next four years. If Bush gets to select those three justices, right wing Republicans will control all THREE branches of the government. There is no doubt that Bush will nominate three justices similar to his good friend, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia is a frightening individual. Here are a few of his comments pertaining to American Law:

“Government...derives its moral authority from God. It is the minister of God with powers to 'avenge' to 'execute wrath' including even wrath by the sword.”

“America's Founding Fathers never meant to exclude God from the public forums and from political life."

The Texas Republican Party Platform reads:

"While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage."

"Our Founders expected that Christianity -- and no other religion -- would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

"Our party pledges to exert its influence to ... dispel the ‘myth’ of the separation of church and state."

My question to you is, IS THIS THE AMERICA YOU WANT TO LIVE IN?

If not, vote these people out of the House, out of the Senate, and most assuredly, elect John Kerry president of the United States of America. This November’s election is not only important, it’s CRITICAL to the continued freedoms our country still enjoys.

©2004 Marcia Ellen "Happy" Beevre