He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear

Archived: Last Updated January 15, 2005
See Liberals for current resource

Senator Edward Kennedy
Contact Senator Kennedy

"We, as Democrats, may be in the minority in Congress, but we speak for the majority of Americans." ..."John Kerry could have worked with the international community to end that war and bring our troops home with honor." Senator Kennedy 01/05

Click here for Senator Kennedy's letter explaining to his constituent why he is against the marriage amendment.

"Unlike the Republican Party, we believe our values unite us as Americans, instead of dividing us. Today, I propose a progressive vision for America, a vision that Democrats must fight for in the months and years ahead -- a vision rooted in our basic values of opportunity, fairness, tolerance and respect for each other." --Sen. Ted Kennedy, speaking to the National Press Club 01/05

Also, click here to ask for Senator Kennedy's Resignation

Quick Links Snapshots - Obstructing Justice - Judicial Nominations - Hate Crimes - Terrorism - Ted is no Jack - ...and more

Snapshots

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said concerning the Defense of Marriage Act: "The rabid reactionary religious right has rarely looked more ridiculous. They know they don’t have the votes to come even close to passing this amendment, but they have a sufficient stranglehold on the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress to force this issue to a vote anyway…"

Treason or Not? The Case Against Ted Kennedy by Joe Mariani -- At some point, we will have to muster the courage to face the facts about Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D-Ma). Since the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was made, his criticisms of the President have become more shrill and accusatory. For the most part, that's fine -- the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech that we all have, within certain limits. (For instance, one cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded building if there isn't one.) However, Ted Kennedy may have crossed those limits in his excessively vitriolic attacks on the President and his decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. >> Read Full Column

(Excerpts) Ted Kennedy has repeatedly given aid and comfort to the enemy in various ways in the course of this war.

He has sought to undermine the credibility of the commander-in-chief by accusing him of manufacturing the case for war in Iraq for his own personal and political ends. "This was made up in Texas, announced in January [2003] to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud," Kennedy said in September 2003. The resolution authorizing the war became law by Congressional vote in October 2002, three months earlier. In October 2003 Kennedy said, "The trumped up reasons for going to war have collapsed," and "the President's war has been revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, and reckless." These accusations can only have a detrimental effect on the morale of our armed forces fighting "the President's war".

He has sought to decrease the effectiveness of America's ability to prosecute war by demanding that Bush fire Donald Rumsfeld in the middle of a war. "I think we need a new beginning," Kennedy said after Rumsfeld's testimony before the Senate regarding the mistreatment of some prisoners in Iraq. By all accounts the abuse seems to have been performed by guards exceeding their orders, on their own initiative. When the abuse was reported, it was immediately investigated. The report from Major General Taguba found, as he told the Senate, that there were no actual orders given to the guards or policy set to mistreat the prisoners, though it was "suggested" by General Geoffrey Miller that they set the "conditions for the successful exploitation of internees." There is no evidence whatsoever that Rumsfeld had anything to do with it, yet this situation is being used to demand his replacement. Removing the Secretary of Defense on such a flimsy pretext in the middle of an ongoing conflict would cause a serious disruption of our military's coherence and efficacy.

He has sought to damage the morale of US troops in the field of combat by comparing them to Saddam Hussein's torture squads, speaking of the same prisoner mistreatment. "On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'" said Kennedy. "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." Saddam Hussein's torture methodology included eye gouging, the piercing of hands with an electric drill, suspension until ligaments were torn, acid baths and feeding the victim feet-first into a plastic shredder.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, Section 2381 of the United States Legal Code defines "treason" in the following way: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason." Senator Kennedy's accusations have given comfort to our enemies, who must surely think that they can force us to back down from them when they hear his vitriolic attacks. His words have aided the enemy by sapping the morale of American troops facing them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the successful prosecution of the fight against terrorism, our enemies must see that while we may argue amongst ourselves, we are united against them. For the good of the country, Senator Kennedy must step down from the Senate. Please go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/tkresjm1/petition.html

Lesson in Socialism, er, I mean deception:
How to effectively use a Liberal spin to avoid criticism and redirect blame at the same time.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Here's what you said on May 11.... "Shamefully now we learn that Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management, United States management." ... How do you respond to that? KENNEDY: That is part of the Republican attack machine, and I reject it.  CNN's "American Morning," May 13, 2004:

Reader Comments - The Federalist Brief 04-20

"I can't imagine any torture more inhumane than leaving an innocent young woman to slowly drown in a sinking automobile in the dark, cold waters off Chappaquiddick." 

"I have had enough. I am the mother of an American Soldier. I watched in horror the news accounts today of an American son murdered by terrorists. I read the terrorists statement that said, 'For the Mothers and Wives of American Soldiers, you will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins slaughtered in this way.' The Department of Defense warned CBS that airing the photos of the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners would result in endangering American Soldiers and American civilian lives in Iraq. But they did not care -- and neither do Kerry and Kennedy, who have recklessly used this story as political fodder against President Bush. They are the ones who should be apologizing to the Family of Nick Berg and the American people."

Does Senator Kennedy prefer the UN Charter over the U.S. Constitution? Socialism over liberty? France over America? Tyranny over justice?

"We pray that mission accomplished has not become mission impossible. America's respect and reputation in the world have never been lower in the entire history of our Nation. Where do we go to get our respect and reputation back? Where do we go to bring a respectable end to the nightmare for America that Iraq has become?" Senator Kennedy --Congressional Record, S4963, May 6, 2004 -- On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: "Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?" Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management--U.S. management.  President Bush has presided over America's steepest and deepest fall from grace in the history of our country. The tragedy unfolding in Iraq is the direct result of a colossal failure of leadership. --Senator Kennedy --Congressional Record, S5058, May 10, 2004

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom...crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" Samuel Adams

Obstructing Justice

Senator Kennedy is starting to feel the heat for MEMOGATE.

The Center for Individual Freedom needs your help to fully expose his office's gross abuse of power to manipulate the outcome of the most important civil rights cases in more than a generation! Click here to learn what you can do to help ensure Kennedy is held accountable.

Kennedy gets a pass again - By David Keene - April 27, 2004 - (Excerpts) Consider the facts. Edward Kennedy's counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Olati Johnson, urged him in April 2002 to force a delay in the consideration of an uncontroversial nominee to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals for the specific purpose of affecting the outcome of the challenge to the University of Michigan's affirmative action program, which was then before that court. It seems that before joining Sen. Kennedy (D), Johnson had worked the case for the NAACP and that she wrote the memo in response to a request from her former boss, who was convinced that the case could be won only if the decision could be made before a vacancy on the court was filled. Johnson knew that intervening in the way her former boss was suggesting was, well, unethical, but decided the case was important enough to justify it anyway. She admitted as much in her memo to Kennedy, writing that she and others on the Judiciary staff "are a little concerned about the propriety of scheduling hearings based on the resolution of a particular case ... but recommend that (the nominee) be scheduled for a later hearing (because) the Michigan case is important." Kennedy acted on it, confirmation was delayed, and affirmative action was upheld by one vote.

Unlike his brothers, Ted Kennedy is a Socialist - not just an ultra-liberal Democrat - he wants a gross expansion of the federal government and more influence over your rights, personal life, and children. Exactly why doesn't Senator Kennedy want school vouchers for D.C.? Hmm? Maybe because of contributions from teacher unions? Just a guess.

"Our son is career enlisted as specialist first class, 40th Combat Engineering Battalion, presently affixed to the First Armored Division, which is presently redeploying from Baghdad to Kuwait on the way back to Germany. We service families are generally offended by the left's actually patronizing our son's risks for their political purposes. They do not like the military, and generally think that people who join are losers who can't do anything else and are of lowbrow intelligence. They are consistently wrong but never in doubt. And they operate from a template disconnected from reality and they never update their template. Another aspect that is offensive is their referring to casualties as resulting from President Bush sending them into harm's way with a sense in their comments as if it were largely against their will or desire. This results from their 'stuck in the '60s' mentality. One fact never enters their comments or the thinking behind them: My son volunteered for this fight and so did every single person over there, as well. That's something they simply can't comprehend. In summary, they are so disconnected from reality, their comments are self-serving and offensive." --Charles Brown -- The Federalist Brief 04-15 -- Keep this in mind whenever Kennedy open his mouth in support of Kerry.

E-News From Citizens Against Government Waste 4/1/2004 - There has been a lot of recent squealing over the cost of the Medicare drug benefit package President Bush signed into law late last year—now estimated to hit $534 billion over 10 years—an increase of 33 percent from the $400 billion projected just last fall. One of the loudest critics has been Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is seeking to blame President Bush for the faulty cost estimates by implying the White House deliberately misled lawmakers. Sen. Kennedy asked, “What did the president know; when did he know it?” Ironically, what Sen. Kennedy doesn’t want taxpayers to know is how much the Democratic plan for providing a drug benefit to seniors would cost—between $800 billion and $1 trillion. For his hypocrisy and duplicity on this issue, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) names Sen. Ted Kennedy its Porker of the Month for March 2004.

Deception + Coercion +Apathy = The Fall of America

Senator Kennedy's "tolerance" means intolerance for Christianity. Senator Kennedy's "fairness" means being unfair to Christians. Senator Kennedy's "hate crimes" means hating what Christianity stands for? Are he and Senator Kerry Catholic or do they just "use" their "religion" for their own gain? What do their objections to Judicial nominees reveal about their "religion?"

Click here to understand America's Second Civil War through correspondence with Senator Kennedy

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars." George Washington in his Farewell Address delivered this day, September 19, 1796

Judicial Nominations

Senator Ted Kennedy revising the United States Constitution. In his effort to block the President's appointment of conservative, Christian, pro-life judges to the federal bench. Sen. Kennedy and a few of his colleagues in the Senate have abused their power by stalling the nominations at all costs - filibustering, endlessly debating, refusing to vote on the nominees. So President Bush appointed Judge William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit during a Senate recess - entirely within the President's constitutional powers. But Sen. Kennedy orchestrated a federal lawsuit to oust Judge Pryor! This legal maneuver, coming from a member of the United States Senate, is wrong, unconstitutional, and unprecedented in our history. He created the problem ... then has the gall to complain about it! If Sen. Kennedy wins the lawsuit, he will have virtual "veto power" over the President's appointments ... dictatorship of constitutional order and over citizens like you living under the law. The commitment of the American Center for Law and Justice is to protect your constitutional freedoms, and that is what we are doing. Edwin Meese, Attorney General under the late President Ronald Reagan, has asked the Eleventh Circuit Court to set right this abuse of power - and we are standing with him. We have already filed a major brief, representing Attorney General Meese and the interests of the ACLJ and its members, arguing that Sen. Kennedy's attack should be rejected by the court. The case will almost certainly move up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and we are already preparing for this. It's a complicated process, with numerous legal approaches that must be researched and planned for. It's time-consuming and costly. At the same time, we are pushing, through a massive petition campaign, for the Senate to change its own internal rules - stop filibustering judicial nominations - and fulfill the letter and the spirit of the law under our U.S. Constitution! --ACLJ

After the 40-hour Senate "Justice for Judges" Debate Senator Kennedy stated: "What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this President of the United States for any...federal court in the United States. ... We are not going to be a rubber stamp for right-wing ideological judges." What Senator Kennedy did not say, was that the only nominations liberals will allow are "constitutional constructionists," those who hold the constitution in contempt, and will render decisions based upon left-with activism, including "world view decisions" and not on the U. S. Constitution.

Speaking of judicial nominees, on the heels of last week's embarrassing leaked Demo-memo from the Senate Intelligence Committee, this week another dastardly Demo-memo surfaced, this time from the Senate Judiciary Committee. It concerned successful efforts to stack the deck in the far-reaching University of Michigan Law School affirmative-action case last year. Some of Teddy Kennedy's minions proposed that Judiciary Committee Demos delay one of President Bush's nominees to the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in order that these odious and unconstitutional racial preferences might be preserved. "The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative-action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it," Kennedy staffers wrote, advising him to slow the confirmation process for Tennessee Judge Julia Gibbons. "The case was fixed," notes Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. "It ought to be examined by the Ethics Committee. It raises questions about whether Kennedy's staffers were in cahoots with [6th Circuit Court] Judge Martin." The memo also identified judicial nominee Miguel Estrada "as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment." Mr. Estrada ultimately withdrew his nomination -- after being filibustered for eight months. The Federalist Brief 03-47

Justice Janice Rogers Brown Smeared By Liberals Summary: Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and other liberals on the Senate Judiciary Committee grilled California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown in a hearing on October 22, 2003. FULL ARTICLE

Senator Edward Kennedy challenged President Bush’s nomination of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to serve on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals by saying, “I think the very legitimate issue and question on your nomination is whether you have an agenda… that too many positions you have taken reflect not just an advocacy but a deeply held view.” Do you have ears to hear?  Who has the agenda?

The Democratic filibuster against judicial nominee Miguel Estrada has little to do with the 41-year-old Honduran immigrant. It is part of a grand design to talk to death a succession of conservative judges selected by President Bush. Democrats are intent on keeping the Senate from voting on any appellate nominations that do not meet the party's specifications. This extraordinary design, without precedent in two centuries of judicial nominations, was launched Jan. 30 in the office of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Present were Assistant Leader Harry Reid and six Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. With all pledged to secrecy, the fateful decision was made to filibuster Estrada's nomination. That was only the beginning. One Judiciary Committee member there was Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Senate's 71-year-old liberal lion. In private conversations with Daschle and in Democratic caucuses, Kennedy has pressed a plan to prevent President Bush from putting his ideological stamp on the federal bench. As Republicans returned ... from recess, they had no immediate response to this threat. Internal Senate sources depict a Senate minority on an audacious mission. Rare use of the filibuster to keep a judicial nominee off the bench is only the tip of the iceberg. Multiple filibusters would generate the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants. ...While conceding that Estrada is 'intelligent,' Kennedy has told colleagues that he must be filibustered because of the need to win an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with the White House." --Robert Novak

U.S. Constitution, Article VI states: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.): It is time for the Senate to stop abusing its power over nominations. Over 200 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances to ensure that excessive power is not concentrated in any branch of government. The President was given the authority to nominate federal judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. The clear intent was for the Senate to work with the President, not against him, in this process. (Congressional Record, page S1221, March 7, 2000)

You might not believe it, but Sen. Ted Kenney (Super Liberal D.-Mass.) actually came out against the delaying and stonewalling of the President's judicial nominees -- especially female and minority nominees. Of course, he was talking about Clinton's nominees. (HUMAN EVENTS Weekly Wrap-Up for October 31, 2003)

Here are a few Kennedy gems ("Congressional Record," September 21, 1999):

--"These delays can only be described as an abdication of the Senate's constitutional responsibility to work with the President and ensure the integrity of our federal courts."

--"This kind of partisan, Republican stonewalling is irresponsible and unacceptable. It's hurting the courts and it's hurting the country."

--"When the Founders wrote the Constitution and gave the Senate the power of advice and consent on Presidential nominations, they never intended the Senate to work against the President. . . ."

--"The vast majority of these nominees are clearly well-qualified, and would be confirmed by overwhelming votes of approval. It would be an embarrassment for our Republican colleagues to vote against them. It should be even more embarrassing for the Republican majority in the Senate to abdicate their clear constitutional responsibility to do what they were elected to do."

--"The delay has been especially unfair to nominees who are women and minorities."

--"It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote 'yes' or 'no.'"

--"These nominees and their families deserve a decision by the Senate."

--"It is long past time to act on these and other nominations. I urge my Republican colleagues to end this partisan stall and allow the President's nominees to have the vote by the Senate that they deserve."

Reckon Sen. Kennedy would follow his own admonitions today?

"Hate Crimes" Legislation

"Any system that puts Teddy Kennedy in charge of a sexual harassment case is a system that ought to be changed." --Ronald Reagan

Homosexual activist David Smith has just been hired by Senator Ted Kennedy to serve as his communications director. WorldNetDaily reported on October 23, 2003, that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has hired homosexual radical David Smith to serve as communications director in Kennedy's D.C. office. Smith served as communications director and strategist for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the most radical homosexual groups in the U.S. Smith can be expected to generate extreme legislation benefiting homosexuals as part of Kennedy's staff. Kennedy has been pushing so-called "hate crimes" legislation for years. The hiring of Smith sends a clear message that Kennedy's office will become an even more aggressive tool of the homosexual agenda.

Two Cents: Kennedy, Hate, and Hate Crimes
HumannEventsOnline.com 9/26/03

Sen. Ted Kennedy, friend to all conservatives, has been in the news quite a bit lately displaying his apparent dislike of President Bush -- which reminded me of hate crimes, which reminded me of a Hate Crimes Bill Kennedy introduced this year. Kennedy held a news conference at which he stated that he is committed to seeing it on the floor of the Senate before the year's end. Given the Bush White House's proclivity to acquiesce to the demands of the senior senator from Massachusetts (such as the Education Bill and the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill), it would be good for us to know some of what Kennedy is pushing.

The bill is a dangerous piece of legislation. Not only will it create a type of "thought police" by criminalizing an offender's perceived mindset during the commission of a crime (and giving future justification for criminalizing the thoughts of law-abiding citizens), but also the bill is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and will damage law enforcement efforts.

Its unconstitutionality comes in two forms. First, the bill will attempt to regulate some hate crimes by claiming a right to do so based on those crimes' alleged effect on commerce. This excuse for increased federal involvement in state and local affairs will not pass constitutional muster. In two cases, United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court stopped the government's attempts to federalize local criminal prosecution via the "regulation of commerce." In both Lopez and Morrison, the Court held that an activity must "substantially affect" interstate commerce before the federal government may regulate it under the commerce clause. Kennedy's bill is about federal law enforcement - a fact the Supreme Court certainly will have no difficulty distinguishing.

The second constitutional problem the Kennedy bill faces is its assertion that the 13th Amendment provides the government's authority to federalize hate crimes. Supporters argue for the bill on the basis that the Supreme Court ruled in the 1971 Griffin v. Breckenridge case that the 13th Amendment outlaws both slavery and its vestiges. Apparently, whites who commit hate crimes against blacks are sustaining such vestiges of slavery. What of hate crimes committed by blacks against whites? Can we say they merely were trying to escape the same vestiges of slavery, or would their hatred also be an unconstitutional vestige of slavery?

An infuriating aspect of this bill is that its supporters have no evidence that state and local authorities are failing to prosecute people who commit crimes based on prejudice. In fact, the sponsors of this type of legislation attempt to garner support by stating that they do not believe the federal government will wind up prosecuting many cases at all. This causes one to think that perhaps what Kennedy and others are seeking is federal prosecution in high-profile cases so as to generate political points by claiming the credit for punishing the guilty parties in said cases.

Though the authors of the hate crimes bill claim that their intention is to create a collaborative process under which the feds would only get involved in a few cases, nothing in the legislation would limit the government to that small role. The federal government could unilaterally take action in any case it deemed appropriate, which would eliminate any sort of collaborative effort with local law enforcement and, in its place, would create a coercive relationship.

Another practical problem with the bill is the federalization of every sexual assault. Every rape is motivated by gender and, thus, would fall under the bill's definition of a hate crime. Nearly all violent crimes are prosecuted at the state and local levels. This is done for good reason: the federal government, unlike states and localities, lacks the experience, expertise, and local knowledge in such cases that is required to do a good job. If the federal government attempts to assume the responsibility for the prosecution of hundreds of thousands of annual rape cases, it would certainly do a worse job, likely resulting in some rapists, who would otherwise have been convicted in state or local jurisdictions, going free.

Were there evidence that state and local governments habitually failed or refused to prosecute and punish people who commit hate crimes, then the federal government would have a legitimate reason to take action against those failing governments. The fact is there is no such evidence.

The bill's supporters use the horrific murders of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard as evidence of the need for federal hate crimes legislation to better prosecute these types of crimes. What they neglect to mention is that three men were tried and convicted in Texas state court, two of them sentenced to death and one to life in prison, for the murder of James Byrd, and the murderers of Matthew Shepard were found guilty in a Wyoming state court and sentenced to life in prison.

Sen. Kennedy's Hate Crimes Bill is unconstitutional and unnecessary and will likely hinder the successful prosecution of criminals. Hopefully, Congress will have enough sense to prevent its passage and preserve the rights and prerogatives of state and local law enforcement agencies.

Creating "Special" Rights Bills H.R. 217, 270, 2355, S.19, 1275, 1284
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil" (Isaiah 5:20).

If these Bills pass, they will amend Title 1 of the United States Code, to eliminate any Federal policy on the definition of marriage. (Sponsored by Homosexual Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who once ran a homosexual prostitution ring out of his home.) and also amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act giving "Special Rights" to homosexuals, by forcing every organization is America, Churches, Day Care Centers, Nursing Homes, Schools, etc. to hire gays and lesbians as teachers, coaches, doctors, etc. S.19  is sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. But all he and the media will tell you, is that it is only Protecting Civil Rights for all Americans.  Also Ted Kennedy's S.1284 which promotes, endorses, and advocates the very life style that killed Jeffrey Curley! If you do nothing, these Bills may pass. Please contact your Senators and Tom Daschle and Edward Kennedy and let them know these Bills will be devastating to your children and to please vote against it. If passed, they will allow homosexual child molesters to get jobs as your child's teacher, coach, doctor, etc. Will you feel safe sending your child to school, soccer practice, or the doctors? Would YOU as a parent send your daughter camping with a man known as a sexual deviate? Likewise, would YOU let YOUR son go camping with a Boy Scout leader who is openly gay? Have YOU let your Congressmen know how you feel?

As the immoral Gay and Lesbian movement has done in Canada, the immoral liberal left (socialists) are  now using local civil rights laws to force the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army into accepting those who go against nature into leadership roles. Their next target will be churches. Then as with socialism, replace freedom of religion with obedience to the state, which is the goal of the ACLU. They have already pressured the United Way and major corporations into withdrawing support from the Boy Scouts, all because the liberal media, the Democratic Party, and sadly some GOP representatives have played the public like a drum, beating the term "intolerance" into their heads and coercing them into accepting immorality to be FORCED into the American lifestyle and into our public schools. Think of the future this is going hold for our grandchildren. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Senator Hillary Clinton are leading this attack on American morality. President Bush has also allowed the attack on the Salvation Army to continue by refusing to protect the right of religious organizations.

Those who preach tolerance become very intolerant when the viewpoint is moral.

Kennedy Reintroduces Pro-SheMale, Homosexual Hate Crime Bill - Summary: Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has once again introduced his pro-homosexual, pro-SheMale legislation known as the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (LLEEA). It could pass at any time. The Democrats have threatened to attach this bill to "must-pass" legislation. http://traditionalvalues.org/article.php?sid=1066

"[The Gay Bill of Special Rights] will be one of the first orders of business in the next Congress, and I believe we can pass it." Senator Edward Kennedy  Please use the link at the left to contact your Congressmen to tell them that "Special Rights" for Gays equals unequal rights for Christians, and Diversity = Intolerance of Christian beliefs and Compulsory Homosexuality Acceptance which is a SIN our children will be forced into accepting as normal, that which goes against nature.

Ted Kennedy introduced legislation to enlarge the violent acts that qualify as federal "hate crimes" to include those perpetrated against practitioners of homosexuality. The Federalist has long opposed all "hate crime" laws as constitutionally unsound. Among other things, they criminalize thoughts and speech protected under the First Amendment, and they further violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of equal protection of individual citizens by treating the same criminal act as more heinous if committed against members of a preferred victim class identified by the government.

The intolerant advocates of tolerance are in full howl over comments by Education Secretary Rod Paige. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is huffing and puffing, Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is shrieking, and Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) is demanding Sec. Paige apologize or resign.  Good grief!  What outrageous things could Mr. Paige possibly have said to have ignited such hysteria?  Did he propose to revive hanging for suspected witches?  Did he advocate establishing an official state church?  Has he undertaken to set up the Inquisition in the public schools or begun imprisoning non-Christians?  Not at all.  Answering a question in a Baptist publication about his personal preference between secular and Christian universities, Sec. Paige said: "All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught a strong faith.  Where a child is taught that, there is a source of strength greater than themselves."  These are the sentiments of a Baptist deacon, which Sec. Paige is, and not an intolerant bigot.  As former education secretary Bill Bennett noted, to which Christian values do Mr. Paige's critics object?  Feeding the hungry?  Clothing the naked?  Caring for widows and orphans?  The left's attack on Sec. Paige is an example of the intolerant anti-Christian bigotry among radical secularists who would drive any recognition of faith from the public square. FRC Washington Update - April 10, 2003 - Do you have ears to hear? Immoral groups such as Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network also criticized Mr. Paige. What does this tell you about those who also attacked Mr. Paige? Do you have ears to hear? What does that tell you about their morality and values?

The War against Terrorism

"In the march to war, the president exaggerated the threat. It was not nuanced. It was pure, unadulterated fear-mongering, based on a devious strategy to convince the American people that Saddam's ability to provide nuclear weapons to Al-Qa'ida justified immediate war. Why would the administration go to such lengths to go to war? Was it trying to change the subject from its failed economic policy, the corporate scandals, and its failed effort to capture Osama bin Laden? The only imminent threat was the November congressional election. The politics of the election trumped the stubborn facts. What happened was not merely a failure of intelligence, but the result of manipulation and distortion of intelligence and the selective use of unreliable intelligence to justify a decision to go to war. The administration had made up its mind and would not let stubborn facts stand in the way." --Teddy Kennedy - in his own words with no substance, an attempt to deceive, and bash Bush.

A best-selling author and columnist says Senator Ted Kennedy is pursuing a "pro-terror agenda." In her recent column on Townhall.com, Michelle Malkin says the Massachusetts Democrat slipped in a sneaky provision to an appropriations bill that would cut off funding to a program known as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. Malkin says Kennedy opposes the program even though it has been successful in stopping 330 known criminals and three terrorists from entering the country. Malkin says the program does, indeed, involve so-called "profiling." Because of this, Malkin says, Kennedy -- and a lot of other "open-border zealots" -- absolutely opposes catching any more criminals or illegal aliens who poses law enforcement threats to the U.S. And she says it is unfortunate that Senate Republicans did nothing to stop Kennedy's agenda. She says Republicans "seem to have been sleeping at the wheel" or there were some Republican "appropriators" who might have agreed with Kennedy's agenda. Malkin feels Kennedy is clearly more interested in helping immigration lawyers and ethnic lobbyists than in ensuring the security of America. AgapePress News Summary (February 14, 2003)

"If our goal is disarmament, we are likely to accomplish more by inspections than by war. The international community accomplished greater disarmament during seven years of inspections than it did during the Gulf War. With the presence of inspectors, Saddam will find it difficult and probably impossible to pursue weapons of mass destruction." --Sen. Teddy Kennedy Note to the Senator: "Some worry of a 'wider war' if we attack Iraq. We are already in that wider war. The question is, will we recognize it now, or will we be forced to realize it later after more of us are killed? If a killer is coming after you, it's better to intercept him before he gets to your door." --Cal Thomas "Terror is not a new weapon. Throughout history it has been used by those who could not prevail, either by persuasion or example. But inevitably they fail, either because men are not afraid to die for a life worth living, or because the terrorists themselves came to realize that free men cannot be frightened by threats, and that aggression would meet its own response. And it is in the light of that history that every nation today should know, be he friend or foe, that the United States has both the will and the weapons to join free men in standing up to their responsibilities." --John F. Kennedy 1961

Ted is no Jack

"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer." --John F. Kennedy

On our United States sovereignty: "This nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and our own proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum -- in the Organization of American States, in the United Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful -- without limiting our freedom of action." -- President John F. Kennedy, Cuban missile crisis, address to the nation, Oct. 22, 1962

"Aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war." --John F. Kennedy

"Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free."--President John F. Kennedy

"I'm waiting for the final recommendation of the Security Council before I'm going to say how I'm going to vote." -- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Iraq crisis, address to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Sept. 27, 2002

How far the Democrats have come. Forty years ago to the month, President Kennedy asserts his willingness to present his case to the United Nations, but also his determination not to allow the United Nations to constrain America's freedom of action. Today his brother, a leader of the same party, awaits the guidance of the United Nations before he will declare himself on how America should respond to another nation threatening the United States with weapons of mass destruction. See the complete article. The Myth of "UN Support" by Charles Krauthammer Friday, October 4, 2002; Washington Post Page A29

We in this country, in this generation are, by destiny rather than choice, the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of peace on earth, goodwill toward men. That must always be our goal. For as was written long ago, "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."  --John F. Kennedy

“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.”  ~ John F. Kennedy

"Law alone cannot make men see right." --John F. Kennedy

On Taxes: "This nation needs a tax cut now that will benefit every family and every business. A tax cut means higher family income and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income we can expand tax revenues and bring, finally, our budget into balance." President John F. Kennedy, September 18, 1963

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. The experience of a number of European countries has borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction has borne this out. The reason is that only full employment can balance the budget and tax reduction can pave the way to full employment. The purpose of cutting taxes is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which will bring a budget surplus." --John F. Kennedy, December 1962

"My proposal would put on hold approximately 350 billion dollars in future tax breaks..." Senator Ted Kennedy January 16, 2002

"It seems to me we're seeing the greatest redistribution of resources from working families to the wealthiest individuals that has taken place in the history of this country."  Sen. Edward Kennedy 2003

DEFENDING JACK KENNEDY against his youngest brother, Teddy, Steve Moore explains that the late President understood the economics of cutting taxes even if the Massachusetts senator does not. Last week Sen. Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) wrote me a letter blasting the Club for Growth for running TV ads using President Kennedy’s name and image in support of the case for cutting taxes.  The letter calls our ads comparing the Bush and Kennedy tax cuts “politically irresponsible and grossly inaccurate.” In fact, what the letter really shows is that Ted Kennedy does not understand the economic policies of his brother, the slain President.  The senator is not alone.  Democrats today are completely uninformed about the tax-cutting legacy of John F. Kennedy. (Read article) Human Events Online 5-19-2003

Other Issues...

On Capitol Hill, backers of serious national-security efforts are looking to House members of the appropriations conference committee to undo a dirty deed done by Massachusetts Demo Sen. Ted Kennedy. Late in the January 23 action over the $390 billion appropriations bill, Kennedy slipped a sneaky amendment into the final Senate legislation, stripping out all funding for the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The House version of the bill included full funding for NSEERS, so the decision over whether to fund it or not is now up to the conference committee. Please remind us, which side is Kennedy really on? (The Federalist.com)

Public Advocate of the U.S. helped, and continues to help, educate the public on various policy issues, worked on the following three federal legislative issues: the enactment of Defense of Marriage Act; the repeal of the Marriage Penalty Tax; and the defeat of Ted Kennedy's Thought Control Bill (so-called Hate Crimes legislation).

Teddy Kennedy vs. Poor Black Children - Sen. Teddy Kennedy is continuing his war on the poverty-stricken. He vows to do anything to keep children from escaping the failed government school monopoly in the slums of our nation's capital. The House barely passed a measure to provide vouchers so that the District of Columbia's schoolchildren, the great majority of whom are black and poor, can get the sort of decent education that the anti-choice Kennedys, Gores and Clintons give their princes and princesses. Teddy's handler Jim Manley on Thursday said the Taxachusetts Dem would even resort to a filibuster to obstruct the bill in the Senate. Instead Kennedy wants to throw even more good money after bad, even though the wretched D.C. schools already spend more per student than many good private schools. "We're frustrated to hear he is so adamantly opposed to this," said Virginia Walden-Ford, executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice. Even Washington's Democrat mayor has bucked the party establishment to join the fight for vouchers. D.C. Parents for School Choice is running an ad in Teddy's home state that shows scenes from the civil rights movement. "Senator Kennedy, your brothers fought for us," Walden-Ford says in the commercial. "Why do you fight against us?" Why? Because he's taking orders from the educrat unions that fund the Dems, of course. NewsMax.com

Kennedy voted against giving low-income parents a choice in where they send their children to school. Kennedy has also voted AGAINST giving parents of children in "violence-prone" schools a choice between public and private school.

The facts about Medicare and the liberal agenda.

The House and Senate are in conference trying to hammer out differences in their passed versions of the prescription drug plan that could cost taxpayers up to $400 billion. Critics are calling it a step toward socialized medicine. Small Business Survival Committee spokesman Raymond Keating agrees with those who say the proposed bill puts us on the road to socialized medicine. Keating says when Ted Kennedy -- a strong proponent of a national healthcare plan -- signs onto a bill, that should be a big, red flag for conservatives. Keating hopes the proposed legislation will be severely modified before it goes before Congress. 

Liberals like Kennedy, Clinton, and Schumer want to revoke the Second Amendment. which would reduce a criminal's risk from being harmed by his victims.

Kennedy also has one of the LOWEST ratings from BOTH the National Taxpayers Union and the American Conservative Union. In other words, Kerry is one of the Senate's LEADING    LIBERALS -- right up there with Daschle, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton!

What the far-left Kennedy is against:

* Against accelerating the pro-growth elements of the Bush tax cut, reduce taxes on capital gains & dividends, and increase IRA contribution limits, saying the tax cut is the cause of our economic recession. Kennedy instead want to raise taxes $350billion, even in the current economy.

* Against lessening our dependence on foreign (i.e., Arab) energy sources by drilling for oil in the Arctic.

* Against providing school choice for parents and children (including vouchers and charter schools).

* Against beefing up Homeland Security and fighting terrorism through a new and streamlined homeland defense agency.

* Against protecting the rights of the unborn.

* Against protecting traditional marriage and outlawing same-sex marriage and benefits.

* Against eliminating the Death Tax.

* Against protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

* Against reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid with practical ideas that don't break the bank.

Chip Ford's (Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation) CLT Commentary (9-20-3003)

Greetings activists and supporters: Because of the hurricane, at 6:30 last night I had network television on in the background when to my astonishment, ABC's "World News Tonight" with Peter Jennings blew our own U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy out of the water. Its devastating "fact check" proved Kennedy's recent, well-publicized charges against President George W. Bush were utterly baseless, simply a cheap political attack. On the charge made by Sen. Kennedy that President Bush had "made up in Texas" a political strategy to invade Iraq and plotted for a forthcoming war against Iraq that would be a political boost for Republicans, ABC News found no evidence that there was such a plot. On the charge that President Bush was "bribing" foreign governments to supply troops to assist the U.S. stabilize Iraq, ABC News quoted a Kennedy aide who'd backed off, saying he instead meant more like encourage or entice! On and on it went, crushing our "esteemed senior senator" and his credibility point by point in front of the nation. The ABC News "fact check" found no such facts -- only an unsubstantiated and partisan Kennedy political attack -- and to its credit, ABC News shared the rhetoric vs. facts with its viewers. I've been unable to find a subsequent news report anywhere -- even ABC News transcripts (at $14.95) are still not available -- but I haven't stopped looking and will keep you updated. I don't know about you, but I'm sure tired of living in a national laughingstock; and some Massachusetts commentators have the nerve to make fun of California!

EarsTohear.net is also shocked that Peter Jennings and ABC aired this "fact check" on Senator Kennedy. Makes one wonder if they are finally hearing what the majority of Americans saying. Kudos to ABC and Peter Jennings on this broadcast.