US Corporate President is TERROR INC

What was our first clue? ENRON and the destruction of every 401K vested in them - except of course, the insiders.

Time to milk Social Security like the Bush Crime family did the Savings and Loans.










People of the LIE,...everything this administration says is a LIE.
They are operating above the law - beneath contempt, having opted out of the Geneva Convention and the International Court, they are quite simply - TERROR INC.





We can predict with COMPLETE accuracy - a Bush will get into power, a war will start and all the companies vested in him will make a bundle KILLING, MURDERING, and STEALING in another country. It IS the American way.

But don't associate it with God Hon, because she is right pissed off with you guys these days.

Righteously pissed.






Ah yes and then we have the whole hatred of women bit with sexual abuse, torture, scandal and a Patriot Act copied from Nazi Germany's Enabling Act. Going after women's reproductive rights just like Nazi Germany...if you can control people's bodies and even tell them who they can sleep with..you have totalitarian control

CNN will now play another five weekends of FLYBOY ...the nausating story of Poppy (after the drug kingdom he established at the CIA) Bush bailing and leaving two to die...while followed by a camera crew of course to detail his "heroics."







Another NEO CON responsible for this mess.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/leavitt/20050314.html


The Bush Administration has now at least partially repudiated its notorious "torture memos" -- suggesting the President need not heed the Geneva Conventions. Yet a series of events over the past few weeks indicates that this repudiation hardly suggests an intent on the Administration's part to begin complying with international law.
To the contrary, these events - like many others that have occurred over the past five years -- reveal the Bush Administration's core view of international law: In the Administration's eyes, it is a purely political, and therefore, fluid, system. It does not impose fixed rules and responsibilities; to the contrary, the President can choose to ignore it - including treaties the U.S. has signed - at will.
news2300);

In sharp contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly noting the importance of international law and opinion.

For example, on March 1, in its ruling in , the Supreme Court took note of international opinion and law. There, the Court held that it is unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death for a crime he or she committed at an age below 18. Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, noted that the overwhelming weight of international opinion against such death sentences "provides respected and significant confirmation" of the Court's own findings, and noted also that the decision would put an end to the U.S.'s international isolation on this issue.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration had taken a position very different than that of the Supreme Court --thus putting the two on a possible collision course. Rather than listening to international opinion, it ignores it. Rather than taking foreign and international law as relevant, it dismisses them.

As I will explain, this attitude of the Executive Branch puts U.S. citizens at great risk - for if our country refuses to heed international or foreign law, other countries will not feel compelled to adhere to it when it is our citizens they have in custody.

The Administration's Position in the Medellin Case Initially Gave Reason for Hope
Just a few weeks after Simmons was handed down, in a brief to the Supreme Court, then-Acting-U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement- on behalf of the Bush Administration - finally seemed to be heeding international law and opinion. Unfortunately, however, those who said so turned out to have spoken too soon.

Many thought the President's apparent change of heart would help soothe the way for a successful summit with Mexico's President Fox in Texas later this month. That hope, too, was soon dashed.