Martin Luther King Jr was A Republican....WTF!!!

OMG is what most have to say on whats located on exit 145 on Interstae 26 in Orangeburg South Carolina. It states that Dr. martin Luther King was A Republican. Now where in The Heck did the get this information, to make things better many of these Black republican goes has far to say they know that Dr. King would have oppossed abortion and all sort of so called labled libral issues.
Now Im not stating whether he was or wasnt my argument is how do you know it was never stated by him if anything most republican during the civil rights movement labled him a communist and socialist. So where does this dellusional NBRA. His wife was allways associated with more democratic functions and issues as she continued on with his work and dream wouldnt her efforts be along the lines of the republican party if husband felt the republican values was intuned with his own. Im not say that the conservative party has ill values but these neocons have truly taken the conservative party to hell. The ideology of the neocon does not reflect that of the Blacks in America and its unfortunate but the neocons owns the republican party.
With there ill spatted comments that comes from mouths like Rush (I need drugs) Limbuagh, Rusty ( I need More Pie) Humphries and Ann (what is she or it) Coulter. There is no way anyone with a true moral mind could be in the same room with these people let alone the same party that does not refute these ill comments.
All this is.....is a sorry attempt to get Blacks on board with Republican agenda......I truly raise my right brow at Black Republicans, there speak soo much like there white counterparts but you only see them when it times for them to bring down some black progressive libral......where are these so call conservative commentators when some white republican is cuaght in something of racial disgression.....no where. Wake up people the ruplican party as it stands is not for the Black people of america. Maybe the ol but ever since blacks have been ignored by the republican party . I say we dont need no NEOCON right wing crap. And leave the legacy of Matin Luther King alone thats just WRONG. SHAME ON YOU NBRA......SHAME ON YOU.

The republican part does not care for the poor or the children here is proof.

We have a President that talks about our children and the poor and the hard working class citizen but he and his republican party continues to hit them hard in where social programs help the most. Congress has just voted to cut 40 billion from programs such as Medicaid and Medicare which helps the elderly...They don't care for grand ma and grand pa on a fix income. Food stamps and education......That goes to show what the no child left behind crap he came up with stand.

Vulnerable low-income families are at risk of losing vital supports in the budget proposals being considered in Washington this year. The president sent his fiscal year 2006 budget proposal to Congress on February 7. The House and Senate agreed on a compromise budget resolutions on April 28. The votes were 214-211 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.
The following chart compares the basic dimensions of the final resolution with the separate resolutions approved by House and Senate.

See More here: http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=1433

I cant stand republicans and there anti poor hate for social programs what will be the result....An increase in illegal drug sales, prostitution HIV and AIDS epidemic will rise...High Toll of death on the elderly due to the non ability to pay for periodic health care. This administration and republican congress and Senate are no good and do not care for the under privilege. And Bush is there Leader in this Ideology.

This Mid term we must get the house and the Senate or we as america will be in a great pool of hell when Bush leaves office in 2008......Get out get democrats registered support positive politicians and hold their as to the Fire to do what is right for democracy and posterity. The Charge begins Now.

Republicans Dont care about the Constitution.

In government, the line-item veto is the power of an executive to veto parts of a bill, usually budget appropriations. This enables an executive to nullify specific provisions of a bill, rather than only being able to approve or veto a bill in its entirety.
[edit]

In the United States of America
This power is held by many state governors in the United States of America. As of 2005, all but seven states allow the line-item veto, namely Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 82 [1] [2] times by President Bill Clinton before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
Despite the court cases ruling the power unconstitutional, President George W. Bush requested that Congress give him the power of the line item veto in his 2006 State of the Union address.
The Confederate States Constitution of 1861 allowed the Confederate president the power of a line-item veto.

Bush On The Bomb

22 November 2005
EXCLUSIVE: BUSH PLOT TO BOMB HIS ARAB ALLY
Madness of war memo
By Kevin Maguire And Andy Lines
PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.
But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.
A source said: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency.
The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.
A source said last night: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.
"He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.
"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."
A Government official suggested that the Bush threat had been "humorous, not serious".
But another source declared: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."
Yesterday former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation. He said: "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions.
"I hope the Prime Minister insists this memo be published. It gives an insight into the mindset of those who were the architects of war."
Bush disclosed his plan to target al-Jazeera, a civilian station with a huge Mid-East following, at a White House face-to-face with Mr Blair on April 16 last year.
At the time, the US was launching an all-out assault on insurgents in the Iraqi town of Fallujah.
Al-Jazeera infuriated Washington and London by reporting from behind rebel lines and broadcasting pictures of dead soldiers, private contractors and Iraqi victims.
The station, watched by millions, has also been used by bin Laden and al-Qaeda to broadcast atrocities and to threaten the West.
Al-Jazeera's HQ is in the business district of Qatar's capital, Doha.
Its single-storey buildings would have made an easy target for bombers. As it is sited away from residential areas, and more than 10 miles from the US's desert base in Qatar, there would have been no danger of "collateral damage".
Dozens of al-Jazeera staff at the HQ are not, as many believe, Islamic fanatics. Instead, most are respected and highly trained technicians and journalists.
To have wiped them out would have been equivalent to bombing the BBC in London and the most spectacular foreign policy disaster since the Iraq War itself.
The No 10 memo now raises fresh doubts over US claims that previous attacks against al-Jazeera staff were military errors.
In 2001 the station's Kabul office was knocked out by two "smart" bombs. In 2003, al-Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US missile strike on the station's Baghdad centre.
The memo, which also included details of troop deployments, turned up in May last year at the Northampton constituency office of then Labour MP Tony Clarke.
Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh, 49, is accused under the Official Secrets Act of passing it to Leo O'Connor, 42, who used to work for Mr Clarke. Both are bailed to appear at Bow Street court next week.
Mr Clarke, who lost at the election, returned the memo to No 10.
He said Mr O'Connor had behaved "perfectly correctly".
Neither Mr O'Connor or Mr Keogh were available. No 10 did not comment.
AL-JAZEERA'S INSIDE STORY

Gonzales The Liar

Gonzales is such a liar when Senator Finegole asked him if Taping of American citizens and spying by the authority of the president could happen Gonzales said that that is totally hypathetical. that was a year ago at gonzales confirmation hearing.

State Of the Union

Today the Bush " I will Not call Him President" is giving his 2006 State of The Union address. As I writre this it s 5pm est and im waiting and taping what he is going to flip this time. more to continue.