goodbye liberal agenda- Bush nominates a rock solid conservative !

Bush Nominates Judge John C. Roberts
AP - 11 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G.
Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court,
selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a
tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, a
senior administration official said. Bush offered the position to
Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the
visiting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce
it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation


http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court



looks like the closet door is slammed shut for good, then smashed in
and locked ! HAHAHAHA !!

On 19 Jul 2005 17:10:23 -0700, "DeserTBob"
wrote:

Bush Nominates Judge John C. Roberts snip

....as he was expected to do. He'll squeak by the Senate without any
filibuster. He's well qualified for the bench.

SO WHAT?

On 19 Jul 2005 17:10:23 -0700, "DeserTBob"
wrote:

Bush Nominates Judge John C. Roberts snip

Hey Noodles! You ghetto baby growers will **** a brick if he turns
out to be another intellectual like Souter, won't you? HAHAHAHAHA!

You're under the gun, Noodles...why not admit it instead of spouting
all this non-topical right wing craziness instead of admitting,
"DeserTBoB and others are adversely affecting my fraud business. I
may be out of business soon. Maybe I should change my ways." Is all
the political garbage some sort of cover, some sort of retribution, or
just your usual delusions of grandeur at work? Who knows...in your
scrambled brain, NOTHING makes any sense, anyway! I know one
thing...continued posting of off-topic material WILL get your ISP
account jerked...again!

It just gets worse and worse, doesn't it, Noodles? And it WILL get
worse. How about all those "no bid" fraud auctions you've got running
now? What would happen if the Penna State Police showed up, found out
those compressors were HOT, and you went to jail for conspiracy to
sell stolen property? You don't even have to have knowledge that they
are indeed stolen to get THAT rap in many states! Ignorance of the
law is no excuse, Noodles...and you're the most ignorant piece of nudo
I've seen on Usenet in years!

I know that some of you may find this opinion to be ultra conservative
and promoting an "unnecessary war" but read it slowly and with an open
mind and honestly ask yourself the question, "Could it be correct ?".

I totally agree with the opinions stated below for why we must defeat
the evil agenda of the Muslim Terrorists....the future of the free
world depends on the their defeat .....it is going to take time, not 1,
2, or 3 years....maybe 10, 15,....who knows..... but I do know that we
cannot afford to give up.

Subject: This War Is For Real
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:59:29 -0700

Brig Gen R. Clements USAF ret wrote:

MG Vernon Chong, USAF ret forwarded: This WAR is for REAL

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country
is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it,
that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are
very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer
who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1=2E When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United
States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the
following attacks on us:

=E2=80=A2 Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979
=E2=80=A2 Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983
=E2=80=A2 Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983
=E2=80=A2 Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988
=E2=80=A2 First New York World Trade Center attack 1993
=E2=80=A2 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996
=E2=80=A2 Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998
=E2=80=A2 Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998
=E2=80=A2 Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000
=E2=80=A2 New York World Trade Center 2001
=E2=80=A2 Pentagon 2001

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581
terrorist attacks worldwide).

2=2E Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or
Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or
their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3=2E Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4=2E What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5=2E Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under
the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that
made no difference. You either went along with the administration or
you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the
Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as
the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom
heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler
kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing
anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over
the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but
kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or
anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were
of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful
Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist
Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their
own pronouncements - killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the
peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6=2E So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than
the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win
if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1=2E Can we lose this war?

2=2E What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the
major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the
answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means
hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our
business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can
get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks
will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they
want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they
would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us,
over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack
us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear
of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent
and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will
be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage It
doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its
troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed
their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they
want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they
might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished
too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.
However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20%
Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life
will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are
completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and
be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put
100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take
that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That
is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their
purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war
effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we
continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the
life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.

Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men
between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow
profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of
the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be
prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most
certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and
in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our
Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict
and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to
war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us
lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is
because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that
conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and
weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our
cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies
best what I am saying.

We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim
prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.

These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing
their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out
their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for
disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed
400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same
type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging
their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing
videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of
American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several
days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating"
of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their
charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but
"humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the
Secretary of Defense.

If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and
understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life
and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this
war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this
prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome
burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media
people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious
to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim
terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels!
That translates into all non-Muslims -- not just in the United States,
but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge
is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe
that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and
minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind
our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world! We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive,
and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of
the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status
or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way
that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war
or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall
of the Roman Empire If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history
books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims
take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to
increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach
little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will
be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done,
which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united
resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some
external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away,
politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown,
worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even
to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then
start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control
the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct,
about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the
election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the
critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is
your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves,
but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that
includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our
"leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to
anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
..=2E..................
Comment: I thank General Chong for forwarding this most appropriate and
timely writing. I certainly concur with the writer on the necessity for
standing up and uniting as peace loving American citizens. This country
was founded by our forbears fleeing religious persecution. I do not
care what religion anyone in this country chooses to practice as long
as it does not advocate the overthrow of our government or the
slaughter of people who do not choose to practice a religion that
opposes the spread of democracy because of the choice it gives people
to live in freedom. The fastest road to peace is to ensure a free
world. "Speak softly and carry a BIG stick".

On 20 Jul 2005 04:07:09 -0700, "DeserTBob"
wrote:


I know that some of you may find this opinion to be ultra conservative
and promoting an "unnecessary war" but read it slowly and with an open
mind snip

Why bother? If it's from Noodles, it's NOT from any credible source.

We know now that US based interests attacked the WTC towers and the
Pentagon. The 767s that hit the WTC towers were fakes, and each
carried a rocket launcher on its belly, as video coverage and on-site
witness statements clearly show. The Pentagon was NEVER hit by a 757;
it was hit by a cruise missile and an A-3...as the engine parts found
inside the building, as well as the 16' diameter hole through 9 feet
of reinforced concrete, show beyond any doubt. How did Al Qaeda get
their hands on those planes and missiles? They didn't.

However, Boeing, recently stung by cancellation of Phil Condit's
criminal 767 tanker deal, had plenty of surplus cargo/tanker
configured 767s laying around that he couldn't get the DoD to pay for.
Remember what one eye witness said about the first plane..."It didn't
have any windows." Even Faux News aired this over and over...until
probably the FBI told them to shut it up. The A-3, largely now
retired, has all its fleet gathered in one place...a top security
hanger at Hughes Aircraft in Hawthorne, CA. Anyone bother to ask
themselves why, or wonder why one of them is mysteriously missing?
Also, why did eye witnesses at the Pentagon say it looked like a twin
engine small commuter plane? Still others said it looked like an
American 737...except American doesn't fly very many 737s, if any.
They've used DC-9/MD-80/MD-88s instead of 737s for decades. Shill
witnesses who have FBI ties were the ones who said it was a 757, no
others. An A-3 could easily be mocked up with AAL graphics and look
a lot like a 737.

Thus, anything coming from any whackos like Noodles is simply
trash...designed to mollify idiots like him into thinking that Al
Qaeda was the prime mover on those attacks. They certainly were not,
as evidence shows beyond a shadow of doubt. The job now for
intelligent people is to find out who in our government and Corporate
America were the prime movers in this phony attack, gather enough
evidence against them, and try them for treason and first degree
murder.

What could possibly be a motive? Easy. The Saudis released a
statement last month that they will not be able to supply US petroleum
needs past 2015, as reported by Eleanor Clift of Newsweek. The story
was buried right after that. Bush is an oil man, who has steadfastly
hindered any progress toward alternative fuels and technologies. Iraq
has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world.

You connect the dots.

For a consice gathering of this evidence, see:

http://www.amplitude-x.com/mirror/loosechangept1.wmv

http://www.amplitude-x.com/mirror/loosechangept2.wmv

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

On 20 Jul 2005 04:07:09 -0700, "DeserTBob"
wrote:


I know that some of you may find this opinion to be ultra conservative
and promoting an "unnecessary war" but read it slowly and with an open
mind and honestly ask yourself the question, "Could it be correct ?". snip

It's not, so why bother? By the way, Noodles...your right wing
whackjob nominee was just caught lying about belonging to the
Federalist Society, an ultra right wing, anti-freedom cabal of kooks
like yourself. Looks like he'll have tough sledding afterall!

I totally agree with the opinions stated below for why we must defeat
the evil agenda of the Muslim Terrorists....the future of the free
world depends on the their defeat .....it is going to take time, not 1,
2, or 3 years....maybe 10, 15,....who knows..... but I do know that we
cannot afford to give up. snip

Why not realize that Bush's corporate and military PALS did the 9/11
attacks? Didn't anyone else see the ROCKETS fired from the 767s that
hit the WTC? Why are there NO public pictures or video of the
supposed 757 that hit the Pentagon? Because there WASN'T any 757!
The Pentagon was hit with a disguised USAF A-3 and a Tomahawk
missile...the evidence is clear. Also, if you examine the video from
any number of sources of the second 767 hit on the WTC, you'll see in
an instant it was NOT A PASSENGER PLANE. Remember that 767 tanker
scam Boeing's Phil Condit got spanked for? That was probably one of
'em. Even eye witnesses at the scene said that the planes had NO
WINDOWS and FAKED PAINT JOBS. Repeated calls to Boeing to explain why
a rocket pod was on the bottom of a 767 are met with "no comment" for
"national security reasons." What's THAT tell you? CNN and other
video shows a ROCKET MOUNT on the belly of the second plane, and the
rocket flareback hitting the building on both hits is UNMISTAKABLE.

We've been hit by our OWN people. As proven by the relatively crude
"suicide" and "drop-off" bombings in both England and Spain, Al Qaeda
does NOT have the kind of smarts OR resources to pull off something on
the scale of 9/11, now that we know that NEITHER US attack was what
the government said it was. Wake up!

REVIEW & OUTLOOK


Bolton to the U.N.
August 2, 2005; Page A10

Can anyone beyond the Beltway recall what the Bolton drama was about
beyond yelling at a few bureaucrats? Deciding yesterday that it was
past time to get on with the serious work of confronting the U.N.'s
manifest problems, President Bush used his recess-appointment power to
send John Bolton to Turtle Bay. That should be good news for anyone
with a good-faith interest in reforming the U.N., now at perhaps the
most critical moment in its 60-year history.

The post had been vacant for six months. Senate Democrats, under the
"leadership" of Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, have prolonged and thwarted
every attempt to hold a vote on Mr. Bolton, who of course would have
been confirmed had his name reached the Senate floor. No wild
accusation was ever proved, other than that he sought the removal of
two intelligence analysts for incompetence and insubordination.
Notably, both the 9/11 Commission and Robb-Silberman Commission said
policy makers have a responsibility to question and challenge
intelligence analysts.

Senators Biden and Dodd ostentatiously demanded that the Administration
let them see confidential intelligence intercepts relating to Mr.
Bolton's testimony on Syrian weapons of mass destruction. These same
Senators agreed that Mr. Bolton's testimony was accurate. And they knew
that intercepts had been reviewed by the Intelligence Committee's two
ranking Senators, who said they showed nothing of import. But this
reality check didn't stop them from pressing a filibuster.

Mr. Bush now faces crocodile shouts of outrage for having bypassed the
Senate, but the appointment is an entirely appropriate use of his
constitutional authority to staff the government. Nor has he shown
himself willing to abuse the appointment power, unlike the most recent
Democratic President.

The most bitterly fought case of the Clinton years was the nomination
of Bill Lann Lee as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Mr.
Lee was given a hearing. But when it became clear that he would be
defeated on the floor of the Republican-controlled Senate, it was
Democrats who blocked a vote.

In response, Mr. Clinton decided against a recess appointment that
would expire at the end of that Congress. Instead, he named Mr. Lee as
"acting" Assistant Attorney General, which allowed him to serve until
the end of Mr. Clinton's term. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd
protested, and even Mr. Clinton admitted this wasn't "entirely
constitutional."

With the circus behind him, Mr. Bolton has a lot to keep him occupied
between now and January 2007, when his appointment expires. We like the
bipartisan blueprint for U.N. reform put forward in June by former
House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George
Mitchell. They call for a permanent independent oversight board to
prevent future corruption scandals like Oil for Food, the creation of a
democracy caucus within the U.N., and more effective security
mechanisms to deter future Rwanda-style genocides.

Meanwhile, legislation conditioning America's $500 million a year in
dues on U.N. reform is barreling through Congress and could result in
another U.S. withholding of funds along the lines of Jesse Helms's
famous boycott. This is probably one reason Mark Malloch Brown, the
U.N. Secretariat's chief of staff, told us earlier this year that he
was enthusiastic about Mr. Bolton's pending ambassadorship. The Bush
emissary, he said, would be an effective ambassador from the U.N. to
Washington.

Also rapidly reaching a crisis state are the investigations into the
Oil for Food program. More breakthroughs are expected soon, and it may
not be long before the new U.S. Ambassador is called upon to negotiate
a successor to Secretary General Kofi Annan. I hope so.

Mr. Bolton's recent State Department experience in exposing the A.Q.
Khan arms network in Pakistan and in persuading Libya to give up its
arms program should prove especially helpful in shaping the U.N.'s role
in battling the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The
Proliferation Security Initiative he helped engineer and run has proved
more effective than any other multilateral organization in stopping the
flow of WMD.

Ambassador Bolton said yesterday that he is committed to making the
U.N. "a stronger, more effective organization." After his past
half-year's experience with the U.S. Senate, we trust that he at least
has some sense of the institutional challenge ahead.

On 3 Aug 2005 05:00:34 -0700, "DICK White"
wrote:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK


Bolton to the U.N. snip

....but not for long! GONE by January, 2007...if not sooner.

2 years away...that's a LONG time !

and Bush's conservative Supreme Court judge will be there for decades !

HAHAHAHAHA- YOU LOSE !