Knollenberg Makes Shocking Admission that He Does NOT Support Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

In a shocking admission published in the Feburary 1, 2006 Detroit News, Congressman Joe Knollenberg is quoted as saying "Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare can't be sustained". Although many of us have always suspected that Knollenberg was out to destroy Social Security and Medicare, this is the first time he has been so blatant about his position.

"Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare can't be sustained."

Joe Knollenberg
February 1, 2005
Detroit News

Many have suspected that Joe Knollenberg has been wanting to completely disable important programs like Social Security and Medicare.

He and his fellow Republicans are still trying to dismantle Social Security by turning it into a privatized system, they just are not talking about it because they know the public disagrees.

Rather than try to convince the public, they are now trying to quietly change the program by sneaking some provisions into the budget bill.

Without any public statement warning voters that he and his evil henchmen (Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, JOE KNOLLENBERG, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, etc.) were again going to try to destroy the Social Security program, President Bush included the privatization of Social Security in the Budget Bill he sent to Congress on February 6, 2006.

Bush plans to not only privatize the program starting in 2010, but he is going to fund it by taking over $700 billion away from the current Social Security system.

Bush, Knollenberg, Cheney, etc. must truly be dedicated to the total destruction of Social Security if they are willing to take away a huge portion of the program’s funding, privatize the system so Wall Street Brokers can get richer, AND – in the interim, they are looking for ways to cut benefits for current recipients.

Shamefully, rather than tell the truth – that Bush and all the Republican’s in Congress plan to shutdown the Social Security program – the White House characterizes their position as “The President will also continue to promote comprehensive reform of Social Security to place the program’s finances on sustainable footing for future generations.”

Wow. That is a fancy sentence. Let me translate it into the truth:

The President will also continue to promote comprehensive reform try to sneak language into law that will eliminate the current Social Security program as we know it of Social Security and instead force Senior Citizens to invest their money in risky stocks – possibly losing all their retirement benefits – while making wealthy stock brokers and greedy Corporate Executives wealthier. to place the program’s finances on sustainable footing for future generations. Meanwhile, Bush and the Republican’s will try to cut benefits as much as possible to Senior Citizens making it even harder for them to pay their rent and buy their medications.

Please do not just take my word for it, look at p. 321 of Bush’s Budget proposal. It is all just plain as day. The White House estimates it will cost:

* $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010,

* $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and

* $630.533 billion for the five years after that

for a total of $712.144 billion.

For additional information, check out this site: www.socsec.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1216

Guns Don't Kill People, People Like Bush & Cheney Kill People

Dick's Score:
1 lobbyist friend shot in the head
+ ?? (Vietnam during Nixon years)
+ 2274 (Iraq as of 2/19/06)


Junior's Score:
152 Executions (as Gov. of Texas)
+ 2274 (Iraq as of 2/19/06)
= 2,426


And not a peep out of Joe Knollenberg. Where was that term last year they all used when tripping over each other to "save" Terri Schiavo? Culture of Life???

Knollenberg Supports Cheney's Proposition that He Has Executive Privilege to Shoot Anyone He Wants to Shoot ... especially if he has been drinking

After hearing though that Cheney sunk so low as to submit to an interview with Brit Hume today, I did look up the transcript.

He claims he has an Executive Privilege to declassify information that is otherwise identified as classified for purposes of protecting national security.

Cheney did con DumbGeorge into issuing an Executive Order that allows the Vice President to classify and declassify some information -- but for the Vice President, all of his authority is limited to when he is "acting in performance of executive duties". Although neither this executive order amendment by Bush nor the original Executive Order defines "executive duties".

It is highly unlikely a court would consider the Vice President's order to his own shoe-licking underling to release information indicating that Ambassador Wilson cannot possibly be a credible source because although he was a card-carrying Republican and appointed as an Ambassador by Bush himself, his wife was not at home walking around barefoot and pregnant. She had a career. A prestigious and top secret career as a covert CIA agent.

Cheney, and since it has all the slime of a Rove idea, most likely Rove himself, must have pondered long and hard to find some way to discredit a man with the credentials -- long standing and high ranking Republican credentials-- of Ambassador Wilson. They succeeded in getting the Fox News liars to try to make John Kerry look like a sissy (e.g., check out the photos they like to show of him in his bathing suit windsurfing and fumbling a football -- that and they tried to make his perfectly charming and quite brilliant wife out to be some sort of evil witchdoctor woman who controlled Kerry's thoughts and actions) so they thought they would try to do the same to Wilson.

He was retired after all and his wife was still working. That made him a sissy right there in the neo-cromagnan minds of Cheney and Karl "Ugly Dog" Rover. (He used to be called Ugly Dumb Dog but that was too difficult for him to remember or spell so he shortened his own nickname to "ugly dog". What kind of loser would do that? Rover. He isn't much good at anything else.)
So they decided to let the world know that his wife had a job, he didn't and the only reason he went to Niger and investigated the rumors about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake uranium was because his wife had gotten him the assignment.

Never mind that the Cheney/Rove story wasn't true. That never bothers them. Sometimes they appear so unethical that they seem pathological in the way they lie and completely ignore facts or reality. They are only good at making up silly false arguments that are made up of short words that the reporters on Fox News probably cannot spell, but they may be able to read them off a teleprompter without making too many mistakes.

By the way, with Rover's history of unethical acts, of lying to the public, of lying and cheating his way through life because he wasn't capable or competent enough to get a real job -- why would anyone like George Bush -- who has so determinedly tried to fool himself into being important like his Dad and his brother -- want that sort of bottom scavenger anywhere in his organization? Does W realize that he was incapable of accomplishing anything by his own merit? Does he know that he is viewed as ignorant by most of the world? Most people who go to Yale and Harvard like to think of themselves as pretty smart. They are particularly interested in having other people think of them as smart. Just the sight of someone like Rover makes me want to run the other way. He is repulsive.

I wonder what it is like to know that everyone knows you are a fake and that you are likely to be written up in history books as the worst President ever? He wanted a job so he could show his Dad he could succeed. That he was smart enough, that he was good enough....But he isn't! That is the part that is so amazing. He knows it. Most of the world sees it. His supporters are just too busy counting their money to even care. I have never bought a friend. Bush and Rover have no friends except the ones they buy.

I cannot decide which one of them is the worse of the bunch -- Cheney, Rove, Bush, or Knollenberg. Wouldn't you have to be evil to collude with evil?

Although I rarely watch Fox News because I think it is highly unethical for any journalist to express his opinion while spouting what is supposed to be "news". Even the faux journalists that were hired to just look good on camera, don't write any news stories themselves, they just read what shows up on the teleprompters - to provide personal commentary under the guise of news. Does anyone remember when a news cast had a minute or so reserved for editorial comment? They would announce it as editorial and have the person speak in front of a sign saying it was an editorial. That was ethical. I don't care if they want to have a show that is all opinion.
An unethical network hires unethical people and reports on unethical politicians. It must be difficult to keep their lies straight sometimes.

In 12 Years Joe Knollenberg Has Never Sponsored any Major Legislation

Bush & Knollenberg Have Not Accomplished Anything Positive or Noteworthy

George W. Bush and Joe Knollenberg are remarkably similar -- they were both elected to office even though neither had any accomplishments to speak of up to that point.

Their elections were handed to them by party members and donors who traditionally fund candidates who are not expected to actually "do" anything while in office other than what they are told by either their Congressional Leadership (Tom Delay) or their "advisers" (Cheney & Rumsfeld).

Less is known about Knollenberg than Bush, but what is most striking is that having been handed the opportunity to do something great for their Country and possibly the world, the former has done nothing and the later has only created harm.

It is difficult to understand why someone with a history of little or no accomplishment would be interested in a position that offered great opportunity for great action, yet take no steps to accomplish anything of merit.

In a recent survey for one of his political opponents in the 2006 election, an overwhelming (76%) number of his constitutents were unable to name him without being given a list of possible answers. (n=867)


Up until a few years ago, Knollenberg's legacy would have been just as bland as his tenure in Congress. However, with the scandals, environmental, economic, and social disasters created by Bush, Cheney and the Republican Party (which is now clearly run by the extremist right wing and generally "uneducated" members).

The Administration that he is so blindly following could give Knollenberg a nasty place in history. He has supported budget cuts for the poor and elderly and has sent American's into a war in Iraq without even giving them protective equipment. He has voted to cut school funding, student loans, and instead opted to give billions and billions of tax payer dollars to wealthy corporations. Historians will review Congress that came in with the Republican "Contract on America" and conclude that they were mislead by their own party leaders and that they misrepresented the interests and views of their constituents. Although there is no penalty for being listed as one the worst Congressman in the history of the Country, it will be a sad and shameful chapter for future generations of his family. His name will not be remembered proudly.

If there is any question about how Knollenberg will be viewed, look at Bush's record. He was a failure before and he has continued to be a failure as President. Since Knollenberg's voting record is 100% consistent with Bush, he shares the blame. Although it may not be reflected in the press today, it will most certainly be written up with the current "press" (including blogs) of the day. Since he hasn't done anything, the only real press for Knollenberg has been his involvement in taking Lobbyist money in exchange for favors like fancy trips to Hawaii and for giving millions of dollars of government contracts to his friends and campaign donors.

Look at George Bush's Legacy -- George W. Bush's legacy will be that of the worst President in the history of the United States. Sadly, his failure as President was foretold by his past. He has never demonstrated competence in anything.

1. Bush Failed In School
Based on even his own statements he was a failure as a student. Clearly, without his Father's name and status in the Republican Party, he would never have been accepted to the elite prep schools he attended. He certainly never would have been accepted at Yale.
He said he was only an average student while at Yale. That hardly seems to meet the criteria for Harvard Business School. It certainly does not meet their criteria for their MBA program. Looking at their current program, Harvard lists minimum criteria and characteristics of potential students as having "Leadership Potential", "Strong Academic Ability", and "Personal Qualities and Characteristics".
A history of drunk driving, fraternity pranks, being AWOL, and having never showed any evidence of being able to be even marginally responsible as an adult and citizen of this Country hardly seems to reflect "leadership potential". His "average" grades would not meet the criteria for "strong academic ability".

He most certainly has "personal qualities and characteristics" -- though none of his could be considered positive. He has terrible communication skills.

2. Bush Failed to Serve His Country in the Military
Although the White House fought to get Dan Rather fired for telling of Bush's failure to complete his service in the National Guard, they never disputed that the story was true. They claim the documents were falsefied. But they never denied the truth of the story. Objective evidence overwhelming shows Bush was AWOL and did not complete his service in the Military.

3. Bush Failed in All of His Business Efforts
First, all of his business ventures were funded by his father, his father's friends, or the Saudi's. When they started to fail, he was usually bailed out by the same "investors". For additional information look up Bush Exploration, Harken Energy, and of course his next company, the Carlyle Group.
4. Bush Has Failed as President
As a President he is bizarrely inconsistent in his positions and explanations of the basis of his activities. He started by proclaiming he wanted Osama "dead or alive" and then just a few months later told us that he wasn't really concerned about Bin Laden.
The only thing that he does do consistently is make statements that are either entirely false, or they oddly describe the opposite of what he is actually doing. For example, he makes statements about how he has built a strong economy but all of the objective metrics show that the only records set in this economy relate to the extent of his failure to grow the economy or create jobs.

New Republican Majority Leader Just As Corrupt As All The Rest of the House Republicans and their Culture of Corruption

The new Republican Party Majority Leader has a cozy relationship with special interests and their money. Rep. John Boehner from Ohio seems particularly fond of expensive vacations to places like Pebble Beach, Venice, Paris, etc.

Although many people thought the Republicans would try to find an honest member to be their next leader because it would be a good sign that the Republicans and their Culture of Corruption could be under a little pressure to reform.

However, apparently there are not any honest Republican's in the House and so they just picked another guy with what they would consider to be an "average" level of dishonesty and corruption.

According to Tim Russert on Meet the Press (02/05/06),

From 535 members of Congress, John Boehner ranked number 10 according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which did analysis of this. Over the last five years they say John Boehner received trips which would equal $157,000, privately funded. And they point out where you went, which is—and here’s, here’s a list,. Congressmen Boehner: White Sulpher Springs, West Virginia, where the Green Briar Resort is, eight times; Boca Raton, Florida, six times; Scottsdale, Arizona, four times; Monterey/Pebble Beach, California twice; Edinburgh, Scotland, home of St. Andrew’s Golf Course, twice. Foreign travel: Rome, Venice, Brussels, Paris, Barcelona.

Boehner first responded by stating that his speeches were in great demand. Listening to him reminded me of Al Franken’s “Stuart Smalley” character who started the catchphrase: “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like me.”

Then his response got quite bizarre. He said he had a lot of brothers and sisters and his father owned a bar. How does that equate to accepting $157,000 in luxurious trips from lobbyists???

He continued with a very convoluted statement:

And I’ve got a very open relationship with lobbyists in town, with my colleagues, with the press, and with my constituents. And, and as a result, you know, people invite me to go give speeches, and I go give them. And you also learn a lot about these industries. It’s easy to point out where I’ve gone around the world, but when you start to look at the people that I’ve worked with—you know, going to, to Scotland with the Transatlantic Policy Network. Now, understanding the relationship between members of the European Union and members of Congress, and trying to build closer ties, this is something that’s very beneficial for members of Congress. And I believe that—that—that privately funded travel ought to be pre-cleared. There ought to be a good public purpose in members going on a trip, and if there isn’t, then they shouldn’t go.

To which Russert merely asked “Congressman, rather than going to a plush resort, why don’t you just meet these guys in your office?” Boehner said “. . . if you get invited, you got to decide whether you can go or not go. . .”.

Apparently making non-responsive statements about the obvious makes one qualified to be a leader in the Republican party. I was surprised that he didn’t answer the next question by saying: “Because Tim, as you know, the earth revolves around the Sun.”

Then Russert asked him about his “cozy” relationship with lobbyists. Russert then quoted the Washington Post “‘Yes, I’m cozy with lobbyists,’ Boehner told lawmakers—lawmakers concerned about his K Street lobbyist connections, ‘but I have never done anything unethical.’”

Then Russert asked him if that was the standard – that as long as he didn’t do anything unethical, it was alright.

Boehner responded:

Tim, everything I’ve ever done in my entire political career has been to the benefit of my constituents and the American people. They’re the ones who dictate what I do every day. I know who I am, and I know why I’m here, not because I wanted to be a Congressman, but because I wanted to do things on behalf of my constituents and the American people. And I—there’s nothing in my entire political career, no decision I’ve ever made, where they weren’t the winners.

Wow. This is actually a lot like saying “because Tim, the earth revolves around the sun.” Or how about, “because Tim, like my constituents, I like baseball and apple pie.”

Boehner likes these free trips so much, he is refuses to implement any House rules that would prohibit them. He is fighting to keep these perks for himself and his colleagues.

Given that their salaries exceed $160,000/yr, doesn’t it seem that members of Congress should be able to afford their own vacations?

Apparently he likes the lobbyists to organize fancy parties for him as well. Russert asked about the apparently well known “Boehner Party” given at all the Republican conventions. They are extravagant and paid for entirely by lobbyists.

Perhaps the most shocking evidence of Boehner being a puppet to powerful special interest groups was back in 1995 when Boehner strutted around the House floor, while the House was in session, and handed out checks from tobacco lobbyists to his fellow Republicans. On Meet the Press, Russert read a portion of the May 10, 1996 New York Times article that exposed Boehner’s arrogant display of the extent that dirty money had entered into the political arena:

There was a big episode in your life back in 1995 when there was—Bob Herbert in The New York Times wrote a column about something you did. . . . Here’s how Herbert wrote it. “One day last summer, 1995 Representative John Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the House Republican Conference, decided to play Santa Claus. He took it upon himself to begin handing out money from tobacco lobbyists to certain of his colleagues in the House floor. He was not deterred by the fact that the House was in session, and that he was supposed to be attending to the nation’s business. He was not constrained by any sense that passing money around the floor of the House of Representatives was a sacrilege.” (emphasis added)

Although the article was published in 1996, Boehner had handed out these checks in June 1995. Recall that this was a particularly sensitive time for the tobacco industry.

A little more than a year earlier, on April 14, 1994, seven tobacco company executives testified to Congress that nicotine was not addictive. By July of 1994, the Justice Department had opened a criminal investigation regarding whether the seven executives had perjured themselves in front of Congress. By December 1994, Congressman Meehan sent a request to the Justice Department to open a formal investigation into the tobacco industry, their law firms, and industry organizations.

So it is not too hard to imagine that these same tobacco company executives were deeply concerned about their own legal liabilities. Fortunately they all had Boehner on their side and he was able to help them win friends and influence people throughout the Republican Party.

Russert then moved on to ask about Boehner’s relationship with Jack Abramoff. Republican talking point #1 on the Abramoff issue must be “I don’t know Jack Abramoff. I never met Jack Abramoff. I’ve never heard of Jack Abramoff. But, in the event photos of the two of us sailing, golfing, or having a laugh at a barbeque are either doctored photos or pictures of Abramoff with my evil twin.”

First Russert stated that Abramoff’s tribal clients gave generous donations to Boehner (over $25,000). Then Russert asked if those same tribes had given him money before Abramoff represented them. Boehner said he didn’t know. Russert knew. Those tribes had not contributed a penny to Boehner until they were represented by Abramoff.

Russert then pointed out that Abramoff had 17 contacts with Boehner’s staff and at least one meeting with Boehner himself. Perhaps Boehner should change his statement from “I never met him” to “I never met him except for all those times I met with him.”

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican's started a new caucus -- the Culture of Corruption caucus. It might help them keep better track of all their lies and bribes.

Is there an honest Republican in the House????

I have not been able to identify one.

Knollenberg is Willing to Sell His Vote for $$$

Not only does Knollenberg support Bush when he is clearly violating the law, Knollenberg also has nothing but praise for colleagues like Tom Delay even though they have been indicted for criminal activities. Silence is acquiescence. So Knollenberg is a co-conspirator to all of them.

So it is not surprising that he supports Boehner for the Majority Leader.

Boehner's claim to fame is that he has been known to hand out campaign donations from tobacco companies on the floor of the House of Representatives. That may not be illegal, but it is most certainly wrong.

Now we learn that Boehner was giving out money to Congressman who would support him in his race for Majority Leader. According to a February 3, 2006 article in The Hill, 14 Republicans, including Knollenberg, publicly announced their support of Boehner after he gave them money.

No wonder the Republican Congressman are so willing to sell their vote to Lobbyists for a little cash -- that is how they operate internally!!

Joe Knollenberg is willing to sell his vote for just a few thousand dollars. Perhaps his constituents should take up a collection so they can get Knollenberg cast votes that reflect the views of the District.

Knollenberg Refuses to Defend the Constitution

Bush is Violating the Constitution and Knollenberg Supports Him

BUSH & KNOLLENBERG Should be Impeached

BUSH = SEQUEL TO NIXON....But worse

The Bush/Cheney cabal are shredding the Bill of Rights one clause at a time.

Arguing that it is okay for the NSA to spy on Americans without warrants and without probable cause is directly contrary to the 4th Amendment. Read it for yourself:

4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches adn seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

FISA has interpreted that to mean that the NSA can spy without a warrant as long as it applies for one within 72 hours. It also requires probable cause. So, Congress has narrowed the protection granted by the 4th Amendment but that isn't good enough for Bush or Knollenberg. They want to just erase it altogether.

Like Nixon, Bush's actions constitute a "violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice".

This quote comes from the Articles of Impeachment prepared for Nixon.

Doesn't Knollenberg's failure to condemn Bush for violating his oath to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution make Knollenberg an accessory? A co-conspirator?


Even more shameful is Bush and Knollenberg's explicit attack on the First Amendment right to free speech. Cindy Sheehan, whos son was killed in Iraq, was given a ticket and invited by a Congresswoman to the State of the Union address. She sat in the upper balcony, but when the SS found out that she had a t-shirt that mentioned the number of American's killed in Iraq, they dragged her out of her seat and arrested her.

She wasn't making noise. She wasn't distracting anyone. If an American is not entitled to express themselves in the United States Capital, then doesn't that mean that the Congress and the President are violating her right to free speech.

Now the Republican's are not satisfied with having the Federal Government tell you what you can say or print, what you can or cannot grow in your own backyard, what medical procedures you can obtain, but now they want to regulate your wardrobe.

Republicans are advocating for and supporting a huge and expansive federal government. Under Bush, the federal government has more employees, more funding, and more authority than ever before.

We need to elect Democrats so we can reduce the size and power of the federal government and who will keep the federal government out of your life.


Is it all Rumsfeld's fault? He seems present in all of the most horrible Administrations.

Court Holds Teaching Intelligent Design Violates the Constitution

(Photos: Bush and Ape -- You decide if they appear related)

In a 6 to 3 vote on October 18, 2004, the Dover Pennsylvania School Board of Directors passed a resolution stating:

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other
theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.

The School Board was going to require teachers read the following statement to 9th grade biology students in January 2005:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually nvolves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

A parent of 2 Dover School students filed a lawsuit against the School Board contending that the Intelligent Design policy violated the First Amendment’s prohibition against the government establishing any religion.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania agreed with the parents and held that the Dover School Board policy regarding Intelligent Design was unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Kitzmiller v. Dover.

The Court noted that the “Discovery Institute”, the organization promoting the theory of Intelligent Design, had developed a policy document that states that the goal was to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and to “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”

The policy document also announced a 5 year strategic plan which set forth a goal of replacing “science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” The policy also described the final goal as being a “complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory.”

In his holding, Judge James Jones, III noted that “ every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such.” The Court also noted:

Initially, we note that NAS, the “most prestigious” scientific association
in this country, views ID as follows:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural
intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they
are not testable by the methods of science. These claims

subordinate observed data to statements based on authority,
revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these
claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates.
These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new
data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with
science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the
possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

Additionally, the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (hereinafter “AAAS”), the largest organization of scientists in this
country, has taken a similar position on ID, namely, that it “has not proposed a
scientific means of testing its claims” and that “the lack of scientific warrant
for so-called ‘intelligent design theory’ makes it improper to include as part
of science education . . .” . Not a single expert witness over the course of the
six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or
organization that endorsed ID as science.

Perhaps most importantly is Judge Jones’ statement in his 139 page opinion which clearly states that Intelligent Design is not science, but instead it is religion and thus cannot be taught in public schools.

Supporters of Intelligent Design have attacked the Judge for his holding. Interestingly, Judge Jones is a conservative Judge who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002. Yet the Judge knew he would likely come under attack by the Religious Right as a result of his opinion and he addressed it by stating:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.

The Court went on to state:

The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Then, almost as emphasis on how ridiculous he thought the entire concept was of Intelligent Design and those who were promoting it, the court then “permanently” prohibited the school district from mentioning the topic and from disparaging Darwin’s theory. Specifically, the Court stated: "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

As predicted by the Judge himself, the Discovery Institute, the prime promoter of Intelligent Design has attacked the Court on a personal basis and is preparing to appeal the decision. In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, Robert Crowther of the Discovery institute wrote:

Judge Jones’ ruling on intelligent design is rife with false assertions and mischaracterizations of the theory of intelligent design. Here are just a few:

It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn't and even though expert scientists testified that this isn’t the case.

It falsely states that a key ID argument, irreducible complexity, has been refuted. It has not. Indeed, in just the past year Cambridge University Press published an entire volume titled “Debating Design” which shows the issue is still very much under discussion.

It asserts the factually false claim that ID proponents haven’t published peer reviewed papers. A number of peer-reviewed papers and ooks are listed on the Discovery Institute website at http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Most incredibly, this lower district court decision describes itself as the final answer for all courts, behaving and talking like it was handed down from the Supreme Court. A judge’s order doesn’t change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, that the laws of physics are finely tuned and that there are miniature machines in cells. Intelligent design research will go on and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.

Rather than admitting that the theory of Intelligent Design is a religious doctrine, the Discovery Institute is writing letters to editors claiming that scientists, and the court, are censoring free speech. Discussions on the Discovery Institute webpage indicate they view the Judge’s opinion as “extremist”.

EU Issues Arrest Warrant for U.S. CIA Agents Suspected of Kidnap & Torture

According to MSNBC news and the Reuters News Service, a court in Milan issued an EU arrest warrant for 22 CIA agents for the kidnapping and torture of an Egyptian cleric.

The Court suspects that the CIA kidnapped Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr from Milan and transported him to Egypt where he was interrogated and tortured. Italian Prosecutors think Nasr is still in custody in Egypt.

As an EU warrant, the agents could be arrested if found in any of the 25 countries belonging to the European Union.

Why hasn't Congressman Knollenberg spoken out against torture???

Bush Violated Constitution By Spying on Americans

Bush has violated the 4th Amendment by spying on Americans without obtaining warrants. It doesn't matter what authority he thinks Congress granted him in 2001 -- no one can grant him the authority to violate the Constitution.

Does intentional violation of the Constitution constitute Treason?
Congress now has an obligation to investigate and take whatever legal action is necessary -- even if it means drafting Articles of Impeachment.


Knollenberg hasn't spoken out against the President yet.

He hasn't even called for an investigation.

Does this make him an accomplice after the fact????

Representative Knollenberg Gives Friend & Big Donor Millions of Dollars in Government Contracts

Vote No on JOE!!

Congressman Knollenberg has gotten himself snared in the Culture of Corruption in Washington, D.C. The December 11, 2005, New York Times (“Congressman Adds More Vegetables to Amtrak’s Load) reported that Knollenberg threatened to withhold $8.3 million dollars from Amtrak if they did not increase the amount of freight they hauled.

The only company that supplies the rail cars that Amtrak would have to buy to haul such freight is a company named ExpressTrak which is owned by a Detroit-area resident named Anthony Soave. According to the New York Times article, Mr. Soave and his family and his employees have donated $46,000 to Knollenberg’s campaign.

Given that Knollenberg has been a critic of Amtrak's primarily for their difficulty in making a profit, Knollenberg turns around and forces them to enter into a contract that is a losing proposition for them. It is a huge "winning" proposition though for Knollenbergs crony friends.In addition to forcing Amtrak to take on business that will result in economic losses to Amtrak, this past summer, Congressman Knollenberg tried numerous times to make severe cuts to Amtrak's budget. He even tried to pass a bill that would have prevented Amtrak from using federal funds on certain subsidized routes.

Had the Knollenberg plan been adopted, Amtrak would have had to eliminate 18 routes in 24 states. They basically would have had to shut down all of their long-distance routes.So, while complaining that Amtrak isn't making a profit, Knollenberg keeps trying to force them into even more situations where the result would be that they would lose even more money. According to an Amtrak spokesman, if Knollenberg's budget for Amtrak was adopted, it would likely have gone out of business within a year. tried to get Amtrak’s budget cut down so far it would likely have gone out of existence within a year.

There is one more twist to this story – apparently there was a lawsuit between the almost bankrupt Amtrak and ExpressTrak. ExpressTrak’s lawyers were apparently trying to settle the lawsuit with Amtrak for – oh, could this just be a coincidence -- $8.3 million. So, by budgeting $8.3 million dollars to the nearly penniless Amtrak, Knollenberg was assuring that the Company would have just enough money to pay-off one of his largest campaign donors.

Now, after this suspicious little arrangement has been made public, Knollenberg says he will try to get the funds rescinded.

Unfortunately, you cannot un-ring a bell.

A bad act is a bad act even if you apologize afterwards.

What is the culture in Congress that these people think it is okay to accept tainted money until they get caught with it and the scandals become public?

Where does it stop?

Where is their integrity?

Michigan residents deserve an honest government.

Knollenberg has demonstrated that he is a member of the Culture of Corruption "Club" in Congress.

Vote to force Representative Knollenberg to retire so he can't misuse or abuse the interests of the American people.

Vote No on Joe!