Bush's poll numbers continue to slide, according to a recent poll only 36 percent of Americans approve of the "job" he is doing... that's less than Richard Nixon!

The dwindling number of die-hard Bush supporters are closing their eyes and mind to realtiy and facts.

Thanks to Cindy Sheehan, more and more Americans, including many Veterans and military families, are speaking out against the war and against Bush. The Right-Wing is up to it's old tricks, accusing anyone who questions Bush or the war of being "traitors" and terrorist sympathizers.

Why do conservatives continue to attack peace activists and accuse them of being "ant-american" and "un-patriotic"? The anti-war Activists were RIGHT about Vietnam and we were right about the Iraq war as well. Both wars were based on lies and deception. Real patriots question their own government and hold it accountable for crimes and deception.

Christian/Republican businessman Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela's popular, democartically elected President Hugo Chavez on his "religious" 700 Club program. Robertson accused Chavez of being a "dictator" even though Chavez won a democratic election and enjoys the support of 70 percent of his country (that's twice Bush's approval!)... even though the U.S. government has been trying to overthrow his government, and maybe even assassinate him like they did Chile's socialist president Alllende in the 70s.

Robertson is an example of American Christo-Fascism at work. He has supported right-wing dictators around the world (in Africa and in Central America). No only is it "un-chrsitian" to call for someone's assassination, he also advocated terrorism. Why isn't the Bush Administration locking Robertson up in Guantanomo?

What if a radical/left liberal had called for the assassination of George Bush?? How would Republicans and the conservative or mainstream press react?

Hurray for Cindy Sheehan! The ant-war mother of a soldier killed in Bush's illegal war in Iraq is camping out near Bush's vacation "ranch" in Crawford, Texas demanding that he meeti with her so she can ask him what 'noble cause" her son died for.

As expected, the right-wing conservative media and wacko talk radio bigmouths attacked her, as they have everyone who questions the Bush Adminstration and the war, as a commie/terrorist sympathizer. It is amazing how hypocritical the conservative pro-war Republican Right is. They claim to support the troops and the U.S. military, while they blindly support a president who is weakening the military by over extending our forces, cutting veteran benefits, and inciting violance and terrorism.

Too bad more "Democrats" haven't challenged this President's illegal actions.

Bush's jop approval ratings are finally falling! His approval is not in the low 40s (40-42 percent), the lowest of any two-term president. (Clinton's second term approval was at 61 percent!). Only the die-hard religious fanatics who blindly follow Bush seem to be supporting him.

More and more veterans and their families are speaking out against Bush and the War. When Republicans start lossing military support they are really going to be in trouble.

It is time for Democrats to press for the Impeachment of Bush!

The confusion over Bush Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts got a little more complex this week when the Los Angeles Times reported that Roberts did pro bono work to assist gay rights advocates fighting Colorado's Amendment 2 ten years ago.

Lawyers who were preparing to argue Romer v. Evans before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995 got help from Roberts law firm HHogan & Hartson. Roberts helped pred lead counsel Jean Dubofsky on her argument before the Supreme Court.

It's difficult to know what Robert's views on gay issues are, but this indicates he is probably not an extreme right-wing homophobe as we feared. It does not make him a strong supporter of gay rights either. The Rover v. Evans decision found Amendment 2 to be a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The majority opinion overturning Amendment 2 was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, no friend of the gay community. It is also important to consider that Roberts defended the exclusion of gays from the Boy Scouts.

We do know for a fact that Roberts was chosen by Bush because of his conservative record and his "strict* interpretation of the Constitution, which pleases right-wing groups who want to overturn Roe v. Wade. If one takes a strict conservatve approach to the Constitution, then there is no "right to privacy" which was the legal basis for Roe V. Wade, as well as the Lawrence v. Texas deicison overturning sodomy laws. If Roberts does not accept this basic right of privacy and would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, he would probably also vote against a right to privacy in sexual activities. Lawerence also involved equal protection issues, since the Texas sodomy law did not apply to hetersoexuals. So he MIGHT rule in our favor in the basis of equal protection, but if state's "sodomy" law applied equally to gays and straights would he have overturned it? Roberts also defended the ant-abortion terrorists group, Operation Rescue.

Roberts is a big mystery, which is probably why Bush chose him. He does not have much judicial experience or writings to investigate. He could be a positive suprise like Sueter, or he could be what the political and religious right think he is... a "strict constructionist" who will oveturn Roe V. Wade.

So far, only one right-wing conservative group as withdrawn its support of Roberts. All of the other major conservative gropus, including Focus on the Family, still support him. They believe that he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and will not insist on a "wall of sepration" between church and state.

We do know that he is a conservative Corporate lawyer who has a history of supporting the interests of corporations over labor and the environment. He opposes government regulations of corporations, etc. So even if he is not a anti-gay homphobe, he is not a good choice for the Supreme Court because of his pro-corporate/anti-labor record which will threaten the civil rights of everyone.

Here is where the gay right and the gay left part ways. Progressive/liberal gays would not support a court nominee who fovored the corporate rich over workers and the environment, and who did not believe in women's right to privacy and reproductive rights. The gay right would.