Iran says the Brits are Spies


Iran says the Brits are Spies

Iran
says the Brits are Spies

John R.
Houk

©
March 25, 2007

 

The NEOCON EXPRESS blog has
alerted me to a
Times Online article that
indicates Ahmadinejad intends to prosecute the British military personal that
were captured for espionage.

 

We all know that Iran has dipped
into their typical bag of lies and claim that the British were in Iranian
waters. The fact is the British were on routine patrol checking for smugglers
and terrorists coming in or out of Iraq.

 

This makes Irans well laid trap
an act of war against Britain
and by association Britain
s ally the United States.
How will the British and Americans respond to this overt act of war? My guess
is the namby pamby Left in both nations will whine that Britain and America
deserved to be spanked by Iran
and we should negotiate peace in our time and give Iran whatever the Islamofascist
Messianic fanatics wish.

 

Who knows? I am just a
blogger, I might be wrong about how Britain
and America
has caved in toward Leftist cowardice.

 

Read the Times Online and the NEOCON EXPRESS posts
HERE
.

 

 

The Homosexual Lie


The Homosexual Lie

The
Homosexual Lie

John R.
Houk

©
March 23, 2007

 

Check this out: The LARGEST
random sex survey ever conducted has determined that ONLY 1.4
% of adults have
participated in homosexual sexual relations (data gathered in 2003).

 

That percentage is
extremely fractional. View the statistic of active homosexuals to (let’s
say) non-homosexuals: 98.6
%.

 

Now match this with the obvious money
involved in getting Americans to accept homosexuality as a valid alternate
lifestyle
or the Psychiatrists that have
validated the microscopic percentage as normal. Even a mathematical moron can
see that 1.4
% is deviant from
the norm.

 

Left Wing organizations
from the
ACLU and MULTIPLE
homosexual rights organizations
are attempting to
delude the public into believing this infinitesimal population that is morally
corrupt should be listed with race, religion and gender in equal civil rights.
COME ON!

 

JRH
*************************
Homosexuals Less Than 2% of Population Says Report Released Today

Standard Newswire
March 23, 2007

PHILADELPHIA,
Mar. 23 /Standard Newswire/ —
According to two researchers, the largest random sex survey ever conducted has
reported that only 1.4% of adults engaged in homosexual behavior. Analyzing a
2003 Canadian Community survey of 121,300 adults, Drs.
Paul and Kirk Cameron
told attendees of the Eastern
Psychological Association Convention
that 2% of 18-44 year olds,
1% of 50 year olds, and only a third of a percent of subjects 60+ considered
themselves homosexual. Thus homosexual activity was much more common among
younger adults.

What happened to the older homosexuals? "Some may have ceased to be
sexually active," said Paul Cameron, "or they may have died. Recent
reports from Scandinavia indicate that the
life expectancy of homosexuals is 20+ years shorter than that of
heterosexuals."

Among other questions (read to respondent by interviewer), the Canadian study
asked:

"Do you consider yourself to be: heterosexual? (sexual relations with
people of the opposite sex)/ homosexual, that is lesbian or gay? (sexual
relations with people of your own sex)/ bisexual? (sexual relations with people
of both sexes)."

"No one can say that this statistic is ‘the bedrock truth,’" Paul
Cameron said, "but even with attempts to increase the percentage of active
homosexuals – which Statistics Canada appears to have done by reporting
only the results of those under the age of 60 – the 1.4% is a figure that
has to be taken very seriously.

"The US
government survey of 12, 381 adults in 1996, reported that 1.3% of men and 1.1%
of women under the age of 60 said they’d had homosexual sex in the last 12
months. It also found few older homosexuals. The oldest male who engaged in
homosexuality was 54 and the oldest female+ 49. So it appears that
homosexuality is a young person’s activity – one that may contribute to
an early death."

Paul Cameron, Ph.D. & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented "Federal
Distortion Of The Homosexual Footprint." Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the
British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the
Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on
homosexuality. The EPA is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States.
At its Philadelphia
convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to
colleagues.

The full report can be accessed at www.earnedmedia.org/frireport.htm.
____________________

The Homosexual Lie
John R. Houk
© March 23, 2007
###
Homosexuals Less Than 2% of Population Says
Report Released Today

© Standard Newswire 2006 (sic). All Rights Reserved.

The New Christian Persecution


The New Christian Persecution

The New
Christian Persecution

John R. Houk

© March 23,
2007

 

Western
Europe
is probably overcome by a new
religion. I am not speaking of Mohammedanism though Mohammedanism is probably
the new European religion’s greatest competitor by virtue of rising population
demographics and the stupidity of the new religion.

 

What is that new religion? It
is Secular Humanism.

 

Secular Humanism actively
attacks the foundations of Biblical morality. In Britain
the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended regulations
that would make it illegal for private or Christian Schools
to teach Biblical Morality, viz. that homosexuality is a sin. The effect is to
make Christian teachings illegal.

 

This kind of thinking is moving
toward America.
The new Christian persecution is analyzed by Chuck Colson which I have posted
below – READ IT.

JRH

**************************************************

Homosexual
Practice Trumps Religious Belief: Outlawing Conscience.

By Chuck Colson
Christian Post Guest Columnist
Tue, Mar. 20 2007 11:36 AM ET

You may think the day would never come when preaching the Gospel would be
illegal in a Western country—when governments would restrict what
Christians can teach.

You would be wrong. The persecution against the Church has taken a decisive
turn in the cradle of civil liberty—the United Kingdom (UK). And it will
happen in America, also, if we do not wake up to the danger.

In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious
schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral. The committee claimed the
regulations are needed to combat discrimination against homosexuals.

And we know about this. Last summer, the British government closed down our IFI
unit because we teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And
if these regulations violate the rights of Christians—what does the
government say? “Too bad.”

Luke Gormally, a fellow at London’s Linacre Centre, a Christian bioethics
institute, put it this way: “The Committee could not be clearer in saying
that they believe the freedom to live a practicing homosexual lifestyle trumps
the freedom to live a religious lifestyle.”

The committee explicitly said that no exemption should be made for Christian
schools. So, unbelievable though it sounds, Gormally notes, when it comes to
sexual morality, the committee would make it illegal for Christian schools
“to teach that Christianity and its principles are ‘objectively
true.’”

Christian schools will not be alone in seeing their religious freedom stripped
away. If this law passes, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for
ministers to share the Bible’s teachings on sexual morality. Property
owners who do not want, for moral reasons, to rent property to homosexuals will
be breaking the law. So will Christian printers who refuse to print pro-gay
literature.

Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide on the Sexual
Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the Blair government’s
refusal to allow a full debate in the House of Commons. And despite repeated
appeals for a postponement, the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate
vote: The regulations were upheld.

Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through both houses of
Parliament before opponents have time to organize. The vote will take place on
Wednesday.

On that day, many Christians will be found at a prayer vigil in Old Palace Yard
near the entrance to the House of Lords. We need to be praying with them,
because it is going to take a miracle to keep this law from passing.

We must also realize that we are going to face this same kind of persecution if
same-sex “marriage” is legalized in America. It’s already
begun, especially in Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” was
imposed by judges. For instance, a federal judge recently decreed that
Christian parents cannot opt their kindergarteners out of public school classes
that normalize homosexuality. And last year Catholic Charities shut down its
adoption agencies rather than agree to send innocent children into homosexual
homes.

This is why we desperately need to be vigilant—especially our religious
liberty groups. This is why, for example, we need to pass a federal marriage
amendment. If we do nothing, we are going to be facing the same future that
Christians in the UK are facing: a future in which preaching the truths of the
Gospel is against the law.

The New Christian
Persecution

John R. Houk
© March 23, 2007
_______________________

Homosexual Practice Trumps Religious Belief
Outlawing Conscience

From
BreakPoint®, March 20, 2007, Copyright
2007, Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved.
Copyright © The Christian Post

Dhimmitude or How Western Muslims Use Western Laws


Dhimmitude or How Western Muslims Use Western Laws

Dhimmitude
or How Western Muslims Use Western Laws

John R. Houk

©
March 20, 2007

 

There is more and more
evidence coming forth that illustrates what the jihadists cannot do by
violence, Islamists will do with Western Laws to protect their Fifth Column
agenda to mohammedanize the West and America.

 

I know you are thinking I am
just being an Islamophobe and you are correct. The problem is Islamophobia is
not racism as the many Islamist organizations in America,
Canada
and Europe would have you believe. Radical
Islam is not a race. Certainly Radical Islamists have a high profile of Arab
and Middle Eastern looking fellows; however Mohammedanism
s largest population
is in Indonesia.
That is Asian. A huge segment of Mohammedans have an Indian ancestry which is
currently split up between Pakistan,
Bangladesh and large
segments of India.

 

So let us re-think this
Islamophobe business is a racist business. Radical Islam is more akin to political
theory radicalized by an injection of religion. It is much like what the Soviets
and Red Chinese did at the beginning of their revolutionary regimes. They
propagandize the population under their influence to worship a cultic status.
In communism it was Karl Marx, Lennon, Mao and the State. In Mohammedanism it
is the medieval acts of Mohammed and his blood lust for a cohesive empire. The
empire initiated by Mohammed exercised a combination of brutality and
propaganda to transform the conquered into passionate believers of the old Arab
moon deity Allah.

 

With money from Wahhabi Saudi
Arabia and Shi
ite Iran, migrating
Mohammedans to America and Europe are exploiting laws
of freedom and
liberty reverse assimilating the cultures they have moved to. WAKE UP!

IS THERE A BUSH AGENDA OBSCURED FROM BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS?


There is the emerging appearance of a Watergate type scandal that may link to the White House. Is the scandal related to the Iraq War? Only in an off hand way is the answer.
 
The scandal has to do with the mysterious choice to allow prosecution of people who are obviously framed or set up to
take a fall.
 
The first to come mind is Scooter Libby. The purpose for his prosecution is ludicrous and had zero to do with leaking Valerie Plames name to the Mainstream Media (MSM). Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had a mandate to go after the person who leaked a useless CIA agent (Plame) to the MSM. Fitzgerald did not go after the person who he did know
(viz. Richard Armitage); rather he went after a person that could embarrass the Bush Administration (Libby). Libby had zero to do with the leak.
 
The next judicial mystery has to do with Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. At first I believed this was just Left Wing bureaucracy persecuting the Conservative agenda to favor spread favor to the benefit of the Democrat Party. These prosecutions are beginning to take on the image of President Bush having a hand in
the prosecutions. He has not spoken publicly of the outrageous actions. Bush
s power base is calling for Executive Pardons for Libby, Ramos and Compean; however it is as if Bush has ear plugs and blinders on.
 
Is there a secret agenda that even the Republican base would be horrified with? Could the unthinkable be correct put forth about Bush? Is the Bush agenda more than a Conservative
agenda? Will Bush prove this an insane speculation and
step up with the stones to pardon Ramos, Compean and Libby?
JRH
*************************************
Bush facing potential "Watergate" over refusal to pardon Agents

Chad Groening
OneNewsNow.com

March 13, 2007

An author and investigative journalist believes President Bush is playing a high stakes game by
digging in and refusing to pardon two former U.S. Border Patrol agents who many people believe should never of have been charged with crimes related to the shooting of an illegal alien drug smuggler. One Congressman has even mentioned the word "impeachment."

Hear This Report

Author Dr. Jerome Corsi has conducted an extensive investigation of the case of former border guards Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who received 11 and 12 years, respectively, after being convicted by a federal court in El Paso. The investigative journalist says this is not the first time the Bush Administration has prosecuted
Border Patrol agents for doing their job; one former agent, he notes, has already won his appeal of a conviction in a case very similar to that of Ramos and Compean.

"The Department of Homeland Security and [U.S. Attorney] Johnny Sutton are out to frame Border Patrol agents to get convictions to satisfy the White House, who wants to please Mexico," Corsi asserts. "If that’s the sequence here, we’ve got some big problems the American people are not going to be happy to learn," he says.

In fact, the author notes, when agent Ramos was brutally beaten up by illegal aliens at a Mississippi prison, one member of Congress actually suggested impeachment.

"Congressman [Dana] Rohrabacher said if either Ramos or Compean were to be killed in prison by the inmates, that impeachment proceedings would be started in the House of Representatives," Corsi notes. "Now, that’s the first time impeachment has been mentioned by a responsible public official," he says, "so
I know this is a case that has high stakes for the White House."

A number of similarities exist between the case of Ramos and Compean and the Watergate scandal, Corsi observes. It becomes increasingly apparent, he says, "the more the White House refuses to get involved in issues like supporting the appeal for these officers to get out on bond pending their appeal."

Under the circumstances, the writer notes, "Ramos and Compean may be spending time today in jail that they never had to spend should their appeal be successful." So the Bush administration’s position, he contends, "is very vindictive; it’s dug in. It indicates a hardening of position by the White House, and I see that as a very bad sign for the White House. It’s the identical thing that Richard Nixon did. When Watergate came, he dug in."

Supporters of the Ramos and Compean believe the Bush Administration zealously prosecuted them to pander to the demands of the Mexican government. In light
of this, Corsi feels Mr. Bush is risking much by refusing to pardon two former Border Patrol agents and that his actions could possibly even lead to impeachment.

IS THERE A BUSH AGENDA OBSCURED FROM BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS?
John R. Houk
© March 13, 2007
________________________________________

Bush facing potential "Watergate" over refusal to pardon Agents
One News Now
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 American Family News Network – All Rights Reserved


No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

American Students Could Face Charges for Desecrating Allah


American Students Could Face Charges for Desecrating Satan (Allah)

American
Students Could Face Charges for Desecrating Satan (Allah)

John R. Houk

© March 11,
2007

 

What is it you think of when you
see Mohammedans in America
and abroad burning the United
States flag? Most Americans would not be
pleased but our heritage would view our flag desecration as freedom of speech
or expression. Some Americans further down the Right side of the scale may even
react with hostile anger. Some Americans further down the Left side of the
scale may actually cheer the Mohammedans along (because Lefties tend to be America
haters).

 

Recently some College
Republicans at San Francisco
State University
stepped on the flags of Hezbollah and Hamas at a college function. These
Republican kids did not burn Mohammed in effigy or even the flags of terrorist
organizations that are not even sovereign nations; they merely stepped on the
flags.

 

A Mohammedan placed an official
complaint that the act of stepping on Hezbollah and Hamas flags was an insult
to Allah. Further the complaint stipulates that the young Republicans were
inciting violence and hate crime by “stepping” on the Hezbollah and
Hamas flags.

 

SFSU is actually investigating
the matter and considering punishment. Can
you believe it?! Mohammedans protest in the most inciteful of manners even on American
soil
yet stepping on the flags of the enemies of America is
a hate crime, it is incredulous!

 

JRH
***********************
STUDENTS FACING CHARGES OF ‘DESECRATION OF ALLAH’
Hamas, Hezbollah flags used in college Republicans protest

Posted: March 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007
WorldNetDaily.com

College Republicans at San Francisco State University desecrated the name of Allah by stepping on
makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags, charged school officials who brought the
students before a hearing yesterday.

The trouble began at an Oct. 17 anti-terrorism rally in which the students
stepped on butcher paper painted to resemble the flags of the Middle East
terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. The College Republicans say they
simply copied the script from an image on the Internet and didn’t know it bore
the name of Allah in Arabic script.

University spokeswoman Ellen Griffin, however, told San Francisco Chronicle
columnist Debra J. Saunders the university "stands behind this
process" of investigating the students for possible punishment.

"I don’t believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag,"
Griffin said. "I believe that the complaint is the desecration of
Allah."

(This image is on the Hezbollah Flag.)

The university has 10 days from the time of the hearing to decide whether to
sanction the students.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education,
or FIRE, which represents the students, insisted the school has no basis for
punishing them.

"The College Republicans engaged in unequivocally protected political
expression, and it strains all credibility to think the SFSU administration
does not know this," he said. "There is nothing to try or investigate
here other than protected expression."

Ten days after the incident, a student filed a formal complaint with the
university against the campus group, alleging "attempts to incite violence
and create a hostile environment" and "actions of incivility."

FIRE argues the university’s Office of Student Programs and Leadership
Development could have settled the matter informally or dismissed the charges
instead of pressing forward today with a hearing.

The legal advocacy group sent a letter to SFSU President Robert A. Corrigan Jan.
23 arguing no American public institution can lawfully prosecute students for
engaging in political protest or for desecrating religious symbols.

FIRE asserted "incitement" and creating a "hostile
environment" are legal terms not applicable to the College Republicans’
actions of stepping on flags.

"SFSU has a duty to uphold the First Amendment rights of all of its
students, even if their expressive activity offends the religious sensibilities
of some," the letter stated.

University officials wrote back Jan. 29, saying the school would continue to
investigate the complaint "to give all parties the confidence that they
will be heard and fairly treated by a panel that includes representatives of
all the university’s key constituencies."

A follow-up letter by FIRE urged Corrigan to call off the hearing,
warning "if you continue to ignore your constitutional obligations, you risk
personal liability for depriving your students of their rights."

"This is not even a close call, legally speaking," FIRE Vice
President Robert L. Shibley contended. "The First Amendment protects using
or destroying flags in political protest, and even SFSU administrators must
realize that they cannot prosecute students for failing to respect a religious
symbol."

American Students Could
Face Charges for Desecrating Satan (Allah)

John R. Houk
© March 11, 2007
_________________________

STUDENTS FACING CHARGES OF ‘DESECRATION OF
ALLAH’
Hamas, Hezbollah flags used in college Republicans protest

Copyright 1997-2007 All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

A Cheney Resignation – A Rice Vice Presidency?


Could Vice President Cheney’s health be the Left Wing dream? There is speculation that Cheney might resign as Vice President. The resignation would not be because of Slanted Left hateraide rather it would be due to the heart condition that has plagued him ever since Cheney became Vice President.
 
Things change rapidly in the realm of politics, thus the speculation is possible; however Cheney has been touring the Middle East with a strong arm stop in
Pakistan. This is not the picture of a person stepping down due to bad health.
 
If Cheney were to step down and President Bush selected Secretary of State Condi Rice to be Vice President for the remainder of this Administration’s term, it would have ramifications on Republican candidates running for the Presidential nomination. I do not know what the effect would be, however the effect would be subject to Rice’s Choices of a post Vice Presidency.


Don’t pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

The Left Indeed Scapegoats Scooter


The Left Indeed Scapegoats Scooter

The Left Indeed Scapegoats Scooter

John R. Houk

© March 6, 2007

 

I find this unbelievable! Scooter Libby was convicted with four guilty
verdicts relating to perjury and obstruction of justice. Then Special
Persecutor Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald proclaims this is the event
that wraps four years of American taxpayer money.

 

Fitzgerald goes after Libby for lying about the outing of Plame. Yet
Fitzgerald knew full well from the beginning of his investigation that it was
Richard Armitage that outed Plame. AND Armitage outed Plame not in any attempt
to cover-up anything President Bush or Vice President Cheney were doing,
Armitage outed Plame to embarrass the President and Vice President because he
was against invading Iraq.

 

In fact Fitzgerald told Armitage to keep quite about his role in
leaking Plame’s name.

 

Plame and Wilson go Scot free about lying. There is NO indictment
whatsoever for Armitage’s treasonous acts and MSM manipulation to wrap
his anti-War/pro-Arab agenda; then Libby is convicted for perjury and obstruction
of justice.

 

The Yahoo News (which I found out is often edited) report makes Libby
looks scandalously heinous and does not write about the appeal outlook put
forth by Libby’s Attorney until the end.

 

Where is the Justice!?

JRH

*******************************************

Libby found guilty in CIA leak trial

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers
Yahoo News (the link may lead to updated info)
March 6, 2007 8:15 PM ET

Once the closest adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing a leak
investigation that shook the top levels of the Bush administration.

Four guilty verdicts ended a seven-week CIA leak trial that focused new
attention on the Bush administration’s much-criticized handling of intelligence
reports about weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war.

In the end, jurors said they did not believe Libby’s main defense: that he
hadn’t lied but merely had a bad memory.

Their decisions made Libby the highest-ranking White House official convicted
in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the
Iran-Contra affair two decades ago.

The case cost Cheney his most trusted adviser, and the trial revealed Cheney’s
personal obsession with criticism of the war’s justification.

Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion
of the prewar intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to
Judith Miller of The New York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador
Joseph Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the
government aware of the effort.

More top reporters were ordered into court — including Miller after 85
days of resistance in jail — to testify about their confidential sources
among the nation’s highest-ranking officials than in any other trial in recent
memory.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said the verdict closed the nearly
four-year investigation into how the name of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, and
her classified job at the CIA were leaked to reporters in 2003 — just
days after Wilson publicly accused the administration of doctoring prewar
intelligence. No one will be charged with the leak itself, which the trial
confirmed came first from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

"The results are actually sad," Fitzgerald told reporters after the
verdict. "It’s sad that we had a situation where a high-level official
person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and
lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did."

One juror, former Washington Post reporter Denis Collins, said the jury did not
believe Libby’s main defense: that he never lied but just had a faulty memory.
Juror Jeff Comer agreed.

Collins said the jurors spent a week charting the testimony and evidence on 34
poster-size pages. "There were good managerial type people on this jury
who took everything apart and put it in the right place," Collins said.
"After that, it wasn’t a matter of opinion. It was just there."

Libby, not only Cheney’s chief of staff but also an assistant to Bush, was
expressionless as the verdict was announced on the 10th day of deliberations.
In the front row, his wife, Harriet Grant, choked out a sob and her head sank.

Libby could face up to 25 years in prison when sentenced June 5, but federal
sentencing guidelines will probably prescribe far less, perhaps one to three
years. Defense attorneys said they would ask for a retrial and if that fails,
appeal the conviction.

"We have every confidence Mr. Libby ultimately will be vindicated,"
defense attorney Theodore Wells told reporters. He said that Libby was
"totally innocent and that he did not do anything wrong."

Libby did not speak to reporters.

The president watched news of the verdict on television at the White House.
Deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Bush respected the jury’s verdict but
"was saddened for Scooter Libby and his family."

In a written statement, Cheney called the verdict disappointing and said he was
saddened for Libby and his family, too. "As I have said before, Scooter
has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction through many years
of public service."

Wilson, whose wife left the CIA after she was exposed, said, "Convicting
him of perjury was like convicting Al Capone of tax evasion or Alger Hiss of
perjury. It doesn’t mean they were not guilty of other crimes."

Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of
perjury to the grand jury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he
learned Plame’s identity and whom he told.

Libby learned about Plame from Cheney in June 2003 about a month after Wilson’s
allegations were first published, without his name, by New York Times columnist
Nicholas Kristof.

Prosecutors said Libby relayed the Plame information to other government
officials and told reporters, Miller of the Times and Matt Cooper of Time
magazine, that she worked at the CIA.

On July 6, 2003, Wilson publicly wrote that he had gone to Niger in 2002 and
debunked a report that Iraq was seeking uranium there for nuclear weapons and
that Cheney, who had asked about the report, should have known his findings
long before Bush cited the report in 2003 as a justification for the war. On
July 14, columnist Robert Novak reported that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and
she, not Cheney, had suggested he go on the trip.

When an investigation of the leak began, prosecutors said, Libby feared
prosecution for disclosing classified information so he lied to investigators
to make his discussions appear innocent.

Libby swore that he was so busy he forgot Cheney had told him about Plame, and
was surprised to learn it a month later from NBC reporter Tim Russert. He swore
he told reporters only that he learned it from other reporters and could not
confirm it.

Russert, however, testified he and Libby never even discussed Plame.

Libby blamed any misstatements in his account on flaws in his memory.

He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI about his conversation with
Cooper.

Collins said jurors agreed that on nine occasions during a short period of
2003, Libby was either told about Plame or told others about her.

"If I’m told something once, I’m likely to forget it," Collins
recalled one juror saying. "If I’m told it many times, I’m less likely to
forget it. If I myself tell it to someone else, I’m even less likely to forget
it."

Libby is free pending sentencing. His lawyers will ask that he remain so
through any appeal.

The prospects of a presidential pardon remain unclear. Top Democrats called on
Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby; the White House did not say what the
president would do.

Associated Press writer Natasha T. Metzler
contributed to this report.

The Left Indeed
Scapegoats Scooter

John R. Houk
© March 6, 2007
_________________________________

Libby found guilty in CIA leak trial
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Spanks Left Court – Again


 

Remember the news
story in which then High School student Tyler Chase Harper attempted to
exercise his free speech right with an act of civil disobedience? The Left Coast
High School was forcing
its students to attend homosexual awareness assemblies.
Harper chose to protest by expressing his Christian view of homosexuality.

Poway High School of San Diego chose to punish Harper rather than uphold his
Constitutional rights. Harper sued. The case ended up in the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which represents
the Left Coast.

Guess what the Left Appellate Court ruled? It ruled to the favor of Poway High
School. Fortunately there is a Supreme Court that
often spanks the decisions of the Left Appellate Court and once again that is what happened.

The Leftist lawyers representing Poway
High School tried to get
the Supreme Court to dismiss the challenge to the Left Appellate Court by
suggesting the case is moot due to Harper’s graduation. The Supreme Court liked
idea however did not rule to the immoral Leftists expectations. By an 8 – 1
decision the Supreme Court ruled the whole package as moot including vacating
the Left Appellate Court’s ruling.

That means the Left Appellate Court’s decision cannot be used as a precedent
against anti-homosexual freedom of speech.


Posted By Theway2k to Slantright
at 3/05/2007 08:24:00 PM