BEST, ABSOLUTE BEST PROGRAM ON TV IS THE ANCIENT ALIENS SERIES ON HISTORY CHANNEL

THIS SERIES IS THE VERY BEST SHOW ON TV NOW OR EVER. I AM AGAIN A GIGANTIC HISTORY CHANNEL FAN AND SUPPORTER FOR THIS SHOW ALONE!

http://joewilsonisyourpreexistingcondition.com/

http://joewilsonisyourpreexistingcondition.com/

PREACHER PRAYS OBAMA GETS CANCER AND DIES

Preacher Steve Anderson in Arizona "PRAYING" that Pres. Obama gets Cancer and Dies

This guy lisps like he has a mouth full of sperm. He claims to be a pastor and yet, is "Praying" for our President to get cancer and die. Jesus would slap you and say depart from me you worker of iniquity, I never knew you.
Here's this jerk's website http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org
Look at the creepy look on his face holding the baby
http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page2.html
Here's the CONTACT info on this Cretin

Faithful Word Baptist Church

Pastor Steven L. Anderson

2707 W Southern Ave, Suite #105

Tempe, AZ 85282

Phone: (480) 248-4082

E-mail: Info@faithfulwordbaptist.org

They're just making it up as they go along

Hit by friendly fire
With his polls down, Bush takes flak on Iraq from a host of critics--including some in his own party
By Kevin Whitelaw

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

That's strikingly blunt talk from a member of the president's party, even one cast as something of a pariah in the GOP because of his early skepticism about the war. "I got beat up pretty good by my own party and the White House that I was not a loyal Republican," he says. Today, he notes, things are changing: "More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned."

Indeed, there are signs that the politics of the Iraq war are being reshaped by the continuing tide of bad news. Take this month in Iraq, with 47 U.S. troops killed in the first 15 days. That's already five more than the toll for the entire month of June last year. With the rate of insurgent attacks near an all-time high and the war's cost set to top $230 billion, more politicians on both sides of the aisle are responding to opinion polls that show a growing number of Americans favoring a withdrawal from Iraq. Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee and Lindsey Graham have voiced their concerns. And two Republicans, including the congressman who brought "freedom fries" to the Capitol, even joined a pair of Democratic colleagues in sponsoring a bill calling for a troop withdrawal plan to be drawn up by year's end. "I feel confident that the opposition is going to build," says Rep. Ron Paul, the other Republican sponsor and a longtime opponent of the war.

Sagging polls. The measure is not likely to go anywhere, but Hagel calls it "a major crack in the dike." Whether or not that's so, the White House has reason to worry that the assortment of critiques of Bush's wartime performance may be approaching a tipping point. Only 41 percent of Americans now support Bush's handling of the Iraq war, the lowest mark ever in the Associated Press-Ipsos poll. And the Iraq news has combined with a lethargic economy and doubts about the president's Social Security proposals to push Bush's overall approval ratings near all-time lows. For now, most Republicans remain publicly loyal to the White House. "Why would you give your enemies a timetable?" asks House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "[Bush] doesn't fight the war on news articles or television or on polls."

Still, the Bush administration is planning to hit back, starting this week, with a renewed public-relations push by the president. Bush will host Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and has scheduled a major speech for June 28, the anniversary of the handover of power to an Iraqi government from U.S. authorities. But Congress's patience could wear very thin going into an election year. "If things don't start to turn around in six months, then it may be too late," says Hagel. "I think it's that serious."

Bush's exit strategy--which depends on a successful Iraqi political process--got a boost last week when Sunni and Shiite politicians ended weeks of wrangling over how to increase Sunni representation on the constitution-writing committee. Now, however, committee members have less than two months before their mid-August deadline. And given how long it took to resolve who gets to draft the document, it's hard to imagine a quick accord on the politically explosive issues they face.

Doing the "Gavel Walk"- by Sensen Baby

Big F'ing BABY Sensenbrenner takes his toy gavel and runs home to cry to Mommy that the big bad Democrats asked to many "hard questions".

BIG F'ING BABY

Ofcom says OK to sex with animals

Note- OFCOM
in the United Kingdom is (from their website)
"Ofcom is the independent regulator and competition authority for the
UK communications industries, with responsibilities across television,
radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services"
----------------------------------------------------------------
"http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1491990,00.html
Radio | Special report: Ofcom | Television
2.30pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ofcom says OK to sex with animals

John Plunkett
Wednesday May 25, 2005

Clean-up TV campaigners seeking succour in Ofcom's new broadcasting
rules suffered an immediate blow today when the regulator gave the
all-clear to programmes about "sex with animals".
The comments by Richard Hooper, the Ofcom deputy chairman, came at the
unveiling of its long-awaited new broadcasting code and will have had
the regulator's spin doctors holding their heads in their hands.

Although Mr Hooper was at pains to point out that the new regulations
will not give carte blanche to broadcasters, he said certain offensive
material would be OK as long as it was shown at the right time and
with suitable warnings.

"[What about] a programme about sex with animals? Yes, it's
potentially possible. It all comes down to context," he said.

The new code, which will apply across all TV and radio networks,
allows broadcasters to "transmit challenging material, even that which
may be considered offensive by some, provided it is editorially
justified and the audience given appropriate information".

Mr Hooper's comments recalled Channel 4 bestiality documentary, Animal
Passions, which featured a man who admitted have sex with his pony and
a woman who had sex with her dog.

Although it was cleared by Ofcom last year, it generated 75 complaints
from viewers who said it "normalised bestiality" and could encourage
copycat behaviour."

police state

Capitol Hill Blue: Police State

Police State
By DAN K. THOMASSON
May 24, 2005, 07:12
Email this article
Printer friendly page

Some really scary things are happening around here these days.
Congress has become a place of great incivility and rancor, which threaten to undermine any hope of legislative remedy to a myriad of problems, from Social Security to soaring health-care costs to immigration to a steadily crumbling manufacturing base once the envy of the world.

But perhaps the most frightening prospect for Americans is an unfettered national police force with the sole discretion to determine who can be investigated as a potential terrorist. That's the impact of little-known proposals to greatly expand the powers of the FBI, permitting its agents to seize business records without a warrant and to track the mail of those in terrorist inquiries without regard to Postal Service concerns.

Because the government can label almost any group or individual a terrorist threat, the potential for abuse by not having to show probable cause is enormous, prompting civil libertarians to correctly speculate about who will guard against the guardians. Up until now the answer was the Constitution as interpreted by the judiciary. But it is clear that sidestepping any such restriction is the real and present danger of the post-9-11 era.

A wise man, the late Sen. John Williams of Delaware, once counseled that any proposed legislation should be regarded in the light of its worst potential consequence, particularly when it came to laws that enhance the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the government at the expense of civil rights. This is most likely to occur in times of national stress, when the Constitution is always vulnerable to assault _ i.e., the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The scenario Williams warned about runs something like this.

You are innocently standing on a street corner waiting to cross when you are approached by a complete stranger who politely, but in a low voice, asks directions to a certain address or area. You, of course, are utterly unaware that the person is under surveillance in a terrorist investigation. You respond in a friendly manner. And although the exchange takes only a few seconds, it is enough to make those following the suspect curious about you. You are identified and a background check reveals that you or your spouse has a relative of Middle Eastern extraction or that you recently traveled to a Middle Eastern country or that you contributed to a charity bazaar sponsored by a church or group under suspicion of passing money through to a terrorist cause.

Suddenly, you are caught in a major inquiry, your personal business records are seized and your mail is tracked. It doesn't take long for your friends and neighbors to learn that you are being investigated, and the result of that is predictable. You and your family are shunned. Your business begins to dwindle and before the nightmare has ended, which can take months, your life is in shambles. The truth never catches up with the fiction and the bureau, which has difficulty in saying the word "sorry," leaves you high and dry, twisting slowly in the wind.

Think it can't happen that way? Well, it does all the time. Ask the lawyer in Oregon whom the FBI misidentified as having taken part in the terrorist bombing of the Spanish railway. Ask any number of persons since Sept. 11, 2001, arrested and detained for months without charges or counsel before they were released.

If that isn't enough to satisfy you about the inadvisability of these proposals, think back to the Cold War days when the most casual acquaintance with a group or person on J. Edgar Hoover's anti-communist watch list could land one in water hot enough to make life miserable for a long time _ maybe even put him or her on one of the infamous blacklists.

If you weren't around in those times, read about them. One thing you will learn quickly is that the sole determination of who or what had communist inclinations belonged to the FBI. Even then, however, Congress was smart enough not to rescind the checks and balances that protect our civil liberties. Federal law-enforcement officers outside the FBI have complained of late about the bureau's penchant for seizing jurisdiction over almost any crime by relating it to terrorism.

Both of these over-reactive proposals are as fearsome as the threat of another al Qaeda attack, for they accomplish the same thing: the intrusion on and disruption of the rights of Americans. Like portions of the Patriot Act, which are rightly being challenged by conservatives as well as liberals, they are medicine worse than the cancer.