Mood:
spaceyNow Playing: LIBTARD ''CULTURE OF CORRUPTION'' ALERT
Topic: Lib Loser Stories
The delusional libtards look at this issue as the "Illegal Immigrant, Convicted Felon Voting Act of 2006" ... That's who they're now pandering to. They know they lost the battle of persuading normal, sane, law-abiding Americans to vote socialist demented-crat.
Voter Registration Drives at Illegal Immigration Rallies
Some of the biggest pro-illegal immigration rallies lately have featured a disturbing phenomenon: Democratic Party operatives conducting voter registration drives.
After Sunday's massive illegal-immigration rally in Dallas, for instance, the Dallas Morning News headlined their coverage: "Activists sign up protesters to put them on road to polls."
The paper quoted Lena Levario, a criminal defense lawyer who's running as a Democrat to be a judge:
"I am so optimistic that I have 5,000 voter registration cards," she told the News.
By the day's end, the paper said - Levario had yet to tally the new voters she'd harvested from the massive - and largely illegal - crowd.
But the Democrat hopeful declared: "We are going to march to the end of the November election."
Also working the illegal immigration rally was David Hanschen, another Democratic candidate for judge. He handed out fliers that read: " Vota Democrata en 2006."
Organizers for San Diego's pro-illegal rally made a decision to focus more intensely than originally planned on registering voters, the Tribune said.
Posted by yaahoo_2006iest
at 12:01 AM EDT
Updated: Friday, 14 April 2006 12:26 AM EDT
chatty
N.J. smoking ban goes farther than businesses thought
No lighting up within 25 feet of buildings
With less than two days remaining until New Jersey bans indoor smoking in public places, restaurant and bar owners discovered they are facing an unexpected restriction -- no smoking within 25 feet of a building.
In releasing 77 pages of proposed restrictions yesterday, the state Department of Health and Senior Services unveiled the "25-feet rule" that might all but snuff out plans businesses had to create outdoor areas, such as decks, where customers could smoke.
The ban, called the Smoke-Free Air Act, is scheduled to go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Saturday. The proposed restrictions are effective immediately, although they won't be finalized until September.
"This will prevent a phalanx of smokers outside the door, which is not only unsightly but unpleasant," Health Commissioner Fred M. Jacobs said of the regulation. "And it will prevent a backwash into the restaurant."
Armando Frallicciardi Jr., co-owner of Lorenzo's Cafe in Trenton and a strong opponent of the ban,
called the surprise regulation "absurd." He said a number of owners, including himself, have been considering building a deck or a patio.
"This means if we build a 30-foot deck, and that is an extensive deck, we would have 5 feet where people can smoke. That is totally absurd," he said. "The state needs to work with small business on this and stop this. They have gained their objective. Now we need to have smoking outside."
In a last-ditch move to stop the ban, at least temporarily, lawyers for restaurant and bowling alley owners are scheduled to appear before Judge Stanley R. Chesler in U.S. District Court in Trenton today. They are seeking a restraining order on the grounds that the law is discriminatory because it allows smoking in the gambling areas of Atlantic City's 13 casinos. The owners maintain they will accept the ban if the casinos are included.
There has been legislation introduced in both houses to have the ban extended to the casino gaming areas.
"This new law is one of the greatest public health measures in New Jersey history," Jacobs said. Up to 62,000 adult nonsmokers in the United States, including 1,000 to 1,800 New Jersey residents, die each year from secondhand smoke, he said.
"This new law will reduce illness and premature mortality through decreased exposure to secondhand smoke," Jacobs said. "It will have tremendous long-term health benefits for future generations as fewer and fewer young people are exposed to secondhand smoke on the job."
The state is providing $200,000, and the Robert Wood foundation of Princeton another $380,000, to finance a public education campaign to alert the public and business owners about the ban. The effort will include direct mail, and print, radio and billboard ads.
New Jersey will join 10 other states that have indoor public smoking bans, including New York, Delaware and Connecticut. And England, Ireland and Italy are among a number of countries where indoor smoking is banned.
One business owner supporting the ban is Michael Zambas, owner of Clinton Station Diner in Hunterdon County. Zambas said he instated a smoking ban at the request of employees when the law cleared the Legislature on Jan. 9
.
"I tell you it is the best thing I have ever done," he said. "Customers look for me and thank me. My business has not suffered at all, and my wife loves it. I go home, hang up my jacket, and it does not smell like an ashtray at all."
Jacobs said health inspectors and local police are prepared to hand out disorderly persons citations to customers or businesspeople who ignore the ban. Fines will range from $250 to $1,000.
"We are not going to be heavy-handed about this," he said. "It is the obligation of owners to remove violators. I believe people will obey the law."
.
d'oh
CREW Prepares Ethics Complaint Against Rep. William Jefferson; Jefferson Breaks Federal Bribery Laws and House Rules
CREW is asking that a Member of the House forward the complaint against Rep. Jefferson to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, better known as the House Ethics Committee. CREW is not submitting the complaint to the Ethics Committee directly because outside groups are barred from filing complaints. The rules allow a Member of the House to certify that CREW's complaint has a good faith basis and forward the complaint to the Ethics Committee, stating that the complaint merits the Committee's consideration.
CREW based much of its complaint on information revealed in the plea agreement of Rep. Jefferson's former legislative assistant, Brett Pfeffer. In court documents, Pfeffer stated that in 2004, he was employed as President of an investment company and worked with Rep. Jefferson and another company, iGate Inc., to market high-speed internet and broadband services in Nigeria. Rep. Jefferson apparently agreed to use his position as a Member of Congress to promote the Nigerian deal in return for favors bestowed upon his family members. In addition, Jefferson received significant campaign contributions from iGate's CEO, Vernon Jackson, and Jackson's wife. Jackson and iGate also made campaign contributions to Rep. Jefferson's daughter, Louisiana state Rep. Jalila Jefferson-Bullock.
In order to further a deal in Ghana similar to the Nigerian deal, Rep. Jefferson traveled to that country with official staff, a member of his extended family and an employee of Pfeffer's. He again used his official position to promote the deal, in exchange for a percentage of the Ghanian company and a position within that company for his family members.
Finally, Rep. Jefferson improperly used federal resources during the mayhem following Hurricane Katrina by using National Guard troops to check on his home and retrieve some of his belongings.
"Rep. Jefferson's conduct shows a blatant disregard for the rule of law and the integrity of the House of Representatives." Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said today. "We urge a member of the House to ignore the long-standing ethics truce and file CREW's complaint with the House Ethics Committee today."
A copy of CREW's complaint is available on its website, 
Link to Press Release and Complaint on CREW's website: 
cheeky
Busby Faces Uphill Battle to Best Bilbray
The Democrat failed to secure more than 50% of the vote for 50th District congressional seat.
SAN DIEGO - Voters replacing the disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham were swayed more by party labels and name recognition than boiling issues like corruption and immigration, analysts said Wednesday.
As a result, two familiar faces - Democrat Francine Busby and Republican Brian Bilbray - will probably face each other in a June runoff that, for all intents, could look a lot like Tuesday's free-for-all.
Although Busby outdistanced Bilbray, she still faces an uphill fight in a district where Republicans have a 44%-30% registration edge. Still, Democratic leaders claimed victory Wednesday.
They said Busby's first-place finish with 44% of the vote showed the power of her anti-Washington message. Bilbray received 15% of the vote, edging out businessman Eric Roach by about 800 votes, with several thousand provisional and absentee ballots yet to be counted.
"Yesterday, voters in California's 50th District spoke out loud and clear against the Republican culture of corruption," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
But Republicans said Busby's failure to win more than 50% of the vote and claim the seat outright showed the limits of the Democratic anti-incumbent drive. "If Democrats can't win on a corruption message here, they can't win on it anywhere," said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the GOP's congressional campaign committee.
More neutral analysts said the contest failed to say much about what will happen nationwide in November, when control of Congress is at stake. The biggest factor in Tuesday's vote, they said, was whether a candidate had a "D" or an "R" after their name.
"It didn't demonstrate the existence of a wave," threatening Republicans coast-to-coast, said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent elections handicapper in Washington. "But it didn't disprove the existence of a wave."
Amy Walter, a nonpartisan expert on House races nationally, agreed. "Did voters send a message?" she said. "The answer is no."
In the end, Busby received the same percentage of the vote that Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts received in the 50th Congressional District in 2004. "She did about as well as a Democrat is likely to do," said UC San Diego congressional scholar Gary Jacobson, adding, "It would only [send] a message if she were to win."
The election was held to fill the last few months of what would have been Cunningham's eighth term. The former Republican congressman quit and was sentenced in March to eight years in prison for bribery and tax evasion.
Fourteen Republicans were on the ballot, but Busby faced only one other Democrat. The three top finishers proved to be the best-known candidates, two because of their political experience, one because of a massive TV campaign. Busby, a 55-year-old Cardiff school board member, ran against Cunningham in 2004. Bilbray, 55, served on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and formerly represented a nearby congressional district. Roach, 43, spent roughly $1.8 million in Tuesday's election.
Although the count is still unofficial, Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman issued a statement hailing Bilbray's performance. Forti later offered more qualified remarks: "If Bilbray's ultimately the winner, then he will have our full support and we would encourage the other Republicans to get behind him as well."
There will be parallel elections on June 6: the runoff between Busby and Bilbray, and nominating contests for the November general election. Of the 14 Republicans who ran on Tuesday, 10 - including Roach - will also have their names on the June primary ballot.
Through a spokesman, Roach declined to concede or say whether he would quit the June primary if Bilbray's edge holds when the count is complete.
In an interview, Bilbray said Wednesday he expects immigration to remain the top issue in the race. "People who are in this country illegally are in the streets waving Mexican flags and demanding that our laws be changed," he said. "If that isn't a wake-up call, people are in a coma."
But Busby said immigration is only one issue voters need to weigh. "People right now need to restore trust, after Katrina, a war that is becoming more negative and our enormous debt," she said.
Despite her first-place finish, even Democrats privately conceded that Busby would have to pull an upset to win.
Barabak reported from San Francisco and Perry from San Diego.
House candidate quits after arrest on robbery, abduction charges
MARION, Ohio - A Democrat seeking a state House seat has withdrawn from the race following his arrest on robbery and abduction charges, the county party's chairwoman said Wednesday.
Willie Pickens, 44, was charged with two counts of robbery and three counts of abduction involving customers at a convenience store, Assistant Marion County Prosecutor Renee Potts said.
Pickens approached customers at the convenience store, claimed to be an FBI agent, ordered two of them out of their cars and frisked them, police said. He robbed a third customer inside the store, then forced the customer into the back seat of Pickens' car, police said. That person later escaped.
The Marion County Democratic Party asked Pickens to withdraw from the race, which he did Wednesday, chairwoman Cathy Chaffin said. Pickens was the only Democrat on the ballot opposing three-term Republican Rep. Steve Reinhard in November
.
Chaffin said she may try to replace Pickens on the ballot or find someone to run as an independent.
Mexican Immigrant Arrested in Boston
BOSTON - A young illegal immigrant who became a cause celebre in Minnesota after secretly living in a high school for weeks has been arrested here on home invasion charges, months after he was supposed to have left the country.
Francisco Javier Serrano (right), 22, had waved goodbye to supporters and journalists who saw him off at the Minneapolis airport in January, but he apparently never boarded his plane for his home country of Mexico.
Two weeks ago, police arrested him after finding him with a knife in an apartment in Boston's North End, struggling with the tenant, who was unharmed, The Boston Globe reported Thursday. He remained in Suffolk County Jail facing home invasion charges and eventual deportation.
Serrano, who overstayed a 2002 tourist visa to live with his father and attend high school in suburban Minneapolis, was embraced by Minnesotans after he was discovered sleeping in the school's auditorium in January 2005 and told how he had spent weeks hiding there, foraging for cafeteria food and showering in the locker room.
Students handed out "Free Francisco" T-shirts, and a developer gave him a place to live and hired an immigration lawyer for him.
Last fall, a federal judge ruled that Serrano must leave the country but gave him until Jan. 5 to do so. That day Serrano went to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, but his plane ticket was never used.
Serrano's mother said he had fallen in love with the U.S. and wanted to go to college and get a job that would let him send money to his family in Mexico. When his father moved from Minnesota to Connecticut, Serrano followed, but the two had a falling out, Guadalupe Flores told the Globe from her home in Mexico City.
"He decided to live his life on his own," she said, crying. "But he did it very badly."
A pretrial hearing was set for April 28. The charges against Serrano probably will be reduced to breaking and entering because he has no history of violence and did not hurt the tenant, said David Procopio, spokesman for the Suffolk district attorney.
"Today" show host and future CBS News anchor Katie Couric arrives at the New Amsterdam Theater, Monday, April 10, 2006, in New York, to attend a memorial service for singer Dana Reeve, 44, a non-smoker who died of lung cancer earlier this year. Dana Reeve was the wife of actor Christopher Reeve, who was paralyzed in a 1995 horseback riding accident. Christopher Reeve died in 2004. >>>>>
Media Companies Seek to Hide Stars' Pay
Media, Entertainment Companies Hope to Keep Under Wraps the Perks, Income of Their Stars, Celebs
WASHINGTON - Some big media and entertainment companies hope to keep under wraps the perks and income of their stars and celebrities, challenging a Securities and Exchange Commission proposal that's being called the "Katie Couric clause."
The SEC proposed the rule in January as part of an initiative to require companies to disclose far more details about their executives' pay packages and perks.
The biggest changes since 1992 in rules governing disclosure of executive compensation are aimed at addressing a source of shareholder wrath.
The regulation in question would require a company to disclose the pay details of as many as three non-executive employees whose individual compensation exceeds that of any of its top five executives.
TV personalities, professional athletes and other celebrities who are employees of public companies could be affected. Their pay packages often have confidentiality clauses. Under the current system, companies must disclose only the compensation of the chief executive officer and the next four highest-paid executives.
The highly paid non-executives would not have to be named, but critics say that since their positions in the company would have to be described, the public and competitors could easily figure out who they were.
The proposal was opened to a public comment period, which ended Monday, and could be formally adopted by the SEC in time for the spring company proxy season next year.
One of those objecting is Jeffrey Katzenberg, one of Hollywood's most prominent producers, who is the chief executive of DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc.
The proposed rule "represents a marked departure from the (SEC's) long-standing policy of not requiring disclosure of non-executive employee compensation," he wrote in his comment letter to the SEC dated April 6. If it were adopted, Katzenberg wrote, it would: "Invade the privacy of employees; reveal confidential and proprietary information to the company's competitors and thus jeopardize the company's ability to retain key employees; cause significant employee morale issues, and provide investors with information of limited value."
DreamWorks was recently acquired by Viacom Inc., an entertainment conglomerate that also owns the Paramount film studio.
Viacom and four other big media companies on Monday filed a letter with the SEC maintaining that the compensation information should be treated as a trade secret. Joining Viacom in the letter, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal in Monday's editions, were CBS Corp., The Walt Disney Co., NBC Universal and News Corp., which owns the Fox broadcast network.
The SEC proposal "would prove especially challenging to companies in the entertainment industry," the letter says. "It is not uncommon for 'talent' (as this term is commonly used in the media and entertainment industries, including professional athletes) to have various employment relationships with a company covering a range of projects."
In some cases, the employee in question may partly or fully own a production company or other business that has a relationship with the larger company, and producers, writers and directors often have profit-sharing arrangements with companies, the letter noted. Sometimes "talent's" compensation is tied to a movie or recording that has not yet been produced.
For entertainment companies, "there is a meaningful risk that disclosure would result in competitive harm or otherwise prejudice their interests," the letter says. "Existing pay packages with non-executive officers were not structured with an eye to public disclosure.
"
Couric recently agreed to leave NBC's "Today" show and anchor the CBS evening news, at a reported salary near her current range of $13 million to $15 million annually for five years.
On the Net: 
loud
Anger, apology over "Condoleezza" quiz 
"We called this meeting, and we had the courage to meet each other and learn from each other and put that learning to use," Floten said.
The hour-and-a-half meeting, attended by more than 150 people, opened an important dialog, but more needs to be done, said Chelsey Richardson, one of the students who brought the issue to college officials.
When she felt her concerns weren't taken seriously, Richardson went to the media and to the Rev. Wayne Perryman, a Mercer Island civil-rights activist. Perryman sent out an e-mail to friends across the country, some of whom belong to conservative and civil-rights groups. Those friends forwarded the e-mail, creating a snowball effect. The college has since received hundreds of e-mails, said Bob Adams, spokesman for BCC.
"The e-mails are primarily angry that this could happen; that's the most common theme," said Adams.
Richardson, 25, said she found the question on a practice test for a math final she was studying for in March. The question read, "Condoleezza holds a watermelon just over the edge of the roof of the 300-foot Federal Building, and tosses it up with a velocity of 20 feet per second." The question went on to ask when the watermelon will hit the ground, based on a formula provided. The question propagates a racial stereotype and denigrates Secretary of State Rice, said Perryman. While Rice's last name wasn't mentioned, the reference was clear, he said.
"How many Condoleezzas spell their name that way and how many Condoleezzas are associated with a federal building? It doesn't take much to connect the dotted lines," he said.
Richardson, along with her friend Ilays Aden, met with the chairman of the math department who agreed to remove the question from the department's files. But the women left feeling the school needed to take a deeper look at how a racist stereotype could be inserted into the curriculum.
"It's not just the question; it's beyond the question," Richardson said. "It's the roots of where the question came from."
Perryman, who attended the meeting, said there would be no instant "microwave solutions" to the problem, but he was glad to see the college taking steps forward.
The college declined to release the name of the teacher who wrote the question. Floten said the teacher has apologized and requested cultural-sensitivity training.
The test question was originally written with the name of a comedian, Gallagher, whose signature shtick was to smash a variety of objects, often watermelons. Later, the question was rewritten, and the name was changed to Condoleezza, Floten said.
In an e-mail to students, faculty and staff, Floten said she took "personal ownership that this act of institutional racism could happen despite a collegewide initiative pursued over many years to establish a safe and tolerant place for all to learn."
Eastside reporter Ashley Bach contributed to this report.
Climate of Fear 
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. 
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation,
one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces
the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions. 
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Cindy Sheehan: Don't attack Iran
Activist finds no justification for military response to atomic threat
Turning her attention from Iraq to Iran, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan insists the U.S. has no justification for any kind of military response to the emerging nuclear threat from Iran, which today declared it successfully has enriched uranium.
indicated the White House is preparing contingency plans that include the possibility of using nuclear bunker-buster bombs to take out Iranian underground facilities.
Sheehan said the U.S. possession of nuclear weapons is "crazy, but talking about deploying them is sheer insanity."
She fears this could lead to a world war.
"With all of the 'Left Behind' religious fanatics praying for Armageddon, this thought is made even scarier by the fake believers in the White House who are exploiting the neo-Christian idea that Jesus was a war monger and anything our great leader does is okay, because he is a Christian man!" she declares.
The U.S. also "must not even, for one moment, contemplate a conventional invasion in Iran either," she said. "No matter how George Bush lies about how rosy things are in Iraq, they aren't, and Iraq is proof that war of any kind is a horribly tragic way to solve problems."
Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq and has since called terrorists "freedom fighters," said while she was not looking to cause any disturbance, she did wear the shirt "to make a statement."
Hey Cindy! Shut up and eat your Roast Duck with the Mango Salsa.
Related offers: 
