Hi Rachel,

I love your show and find it the most rational, logic based show on AAR. It is great to see you on Olbermann, and even better they have replaced, the other fill-ins (Stewart, etc.) with someone who provides some thought, instead of just going off the script!

I was hoping you could address this issue, that I do not believe is reaching the MSM and is being completely ignored. Having just taken part in the Obama Rally here in Portland, I am hoping this is not a derogatory comment on the HRC campaign, but rather a very striking contradiction made by both the campaign & by her supporters.

I feel, they are claiming they are being slighted by sexism, when in fact, a large argument they make is they will only vote for HRC because she is a women and the nation [read:women supporters] are entitled to have a woman President. Is not their argument not unto itself "Sexist"?

I outline it here on my blog that I have recently started

I passed this on to Keith as well, but his comment posts, tend to never appear or appear sporatically:(

Thank you! I look forward to more of your shows, maybe MSNBC will replace their one-term Republican wonderboy, Joe Scarborough, with you! :)

Hans, Portland, OR

OK, I hope I can get this in this time around. It's been over 10 days that I am trying with no success to post this here... everytime I try it does not come through. So I decided to wait until someone else posted this. As of today I haven't seen it, so here it goes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1904761/The-mo...

Rachel made #50 in the top 50 US most influential pundits. YEAAAHHH!!!!! Granted, she was well behind some dinosaours of the right-wing perversion.... but heck! She's still one of the top ones!!!!

Yeeeeee Haaaaawwww!!!!

Parabens! (aka, congratulations in Portuguese!)
-- I hope this time it gets posted --

I think Rachel meant:
http://www.gibill2008.org/state.html

According to Der Spiegel, Obama will declare his victory in Des Moines tomorrow:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,553966,00.html

Except she's younger than me! Oy vey.

Good work on Countdown. The proselytizing continues. Join the church of Maddow.

Can't wait till Maddow-vison.

Yay!

Glad to see more people finding out what we all KNOW already.

Congratulations Dr. Maddow

Hank in Albuquerque

#1 ) Abrams (offer the hyena VP slot every night Verdicto) took credit for Friday's rating boom. "Thank you audience for making MSnbc the top in the demo" WRONG SCHMUCK!!!!!!!!!! RM's animal magnetism, screen penetrating pheromones, did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#2 ) Check out Aprils Time:

"I have never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special-interest group," he said last December. But he complicates matters by also admitting what other politicians rarely do: the system itself is corrupted and corrupting. "All of us are tainted," McCain said in 2002. "And I am one of them."
www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1725768,00.html

and

If biofuels are the new dotcoms, Iowa is Silicon Valley, with 53,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in income dependent on the industry. The state has so many ethanol distilleries under construction that it's poised to become a net importer of corn. That's why biofuel-pandering has become virtually mandatory for presidential contenders. John McCain was the rare candidate who vehemently opposed ethanol as an outrageous agribusiness boondoggle, which is why he skipped Iowa in 2000. But McCain learned his lesson in time for this year's caucuses. By 2006 he was calling ethanol a "vital alternative energy source." ...

Last year fewer than 2% of U.S. gas stations offered ethanol, and the country produced 7 billion gal. (26.5 billion L) of biofuel, which cost taxpayers at least $8 billion in subsidies. But on Nov. 6, at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled an eye-popping plan that would require all stations to offer ethanol by 2017 while mandating 60 billion gal. (227 billion L) by 2030. "This is the fuel for a much brighter future!" she declared. Barack Obama immediately criticized her--not for proposing such an expansive plan but for failing to support ethanol before she started trolling for votes in Iowa's caucuses.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1725975,00.html

finally

The farm bill remains yet another policy instrument by which the rich get richer and the poor get the pitchfork.

Mother Jones: There's an impression that the farm bill is all that keeps farmers in overalls riding tractors from falling over the precipice. How accurate is that?

Ken Cook: The farm bill does definitely provide help to a lot of family farmers of exactly the type we conjure up in American Gothic style. That's not the problem with the bill. The problem is that so much of the money that goes out through these farm programs goes to very large, commercial operations that are getting bigger all the time and basically buying up those family farms with the mom and pop in overalls working dawn to dusk. Ten percent of the beneficiaries over the last ten years have gotten over 70 percent of the subsidy money. And so the concern, which, interestingly enough, we shared most with the White House this time around, was that too much money is being funneled to large, profitable farming operations.
www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/05/farm-bill-ken-cook.html

Get big, or get out!

As in many states, farmland in Iowa is being gathered up into ever-larger farms. In many cases, the owners are families buying up neighboring tracts. But increasingly, outside investors are also buying Iowa farmland, with "one in five acres of farmland in Iowa now owned by someone who doesn't live here," Duffy said. Many of the outside landlords rent their land to the highest bidders.

Nationally, the average size of a farm has more than doubled in the past two decades, to 441 acres. Many farms now cover thousands of acres, some tens of thousands.

"It the conventional agricultural policy is to get big or get out," said Traci Bruckner, a policy analyst at the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Neb., which works to preserve small farms and rural communities. "To me, that seems backwards."
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001591...

#3 ) Now that Rev Wright's cooled down, tell KO to jump up in Hannity's ass about his White Supremacist brothers:

Neo-Nazi/white supremacist Hal Turner elaborated further on his webcast last night (3/26/08) about his past friendship with Sean Hannity. His description remained consistent with that laid out by Max Blumenthal in The Nation. Turner acknowledged he had previously made some mistakes about dates in his blog post on the subject but insisted that the framework of their relationship was as he described it. Turner was obviously miffed that Hannity had denied knowing him. As part of the proof that they had been friends, Turner recited the “back door” phone number he used to get directly on the air on WABC radio. Turner also tried to blackmail Hannity by offering to sell copies of tapes of their conversations for $100,000 or the exclusive rights for $250,000. To show you just what kind of guy he is, I've included a sample of Turner plotting white supremacist attacks with one of his listeners. With audio www.newshounds.us/2008/03/27/think_barack_obamas_pastor_reflects_badly_o...

www.newshounds.us/2008/05/14/_clinton_surrogate_we_did_obama_a_favor_by_...

#4 ) Not that anyone gives a fuck but Colmes was head over heels fawning over John Bolton on his WWRL1600 after Sharpton show, where BOLTON was given all the time he wanted to praise Lieberman and McBush, while bashing BHO.

The best part was how the enhanced Iranian leverage is based on the dialog that the US and NATO has engaged with the Persian evildoers in the effort to quash their atomic ambition. Iran would be diminished if only communication had been terminated altogether.

They medicate the clinically insane don't they? They still shoot horses, right?

There is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack Iran and simply is waiting for a propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.

One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury after consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war preparations are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance.

"It will be like the TV show '24'," the American military source said, citing the likelihood of Islamic retaliation reaching directly into the United States.

Though Bush insists that no decision has been made on attacking Iran, he offered similar assurances of his commitment to peace in the months before invading Iraq in 2003. Yet leaked documents from London made clear that he had set a course for war nine months to a year before the Iraq invasion.

In other words, Bush's statements that he has no plans to "invade" Iran and that he's still committed to settle differences with Iran over its nuclear program diplomatically should be taken with a grain of salt. ...

James Baker III and the seven dwarfs of the "Iraq Study Group" have come up with some simply brilliant recommendations. Not.

Baker's Two Big Ideas are:

1. Stay half the course. Keeping 140,000 troops in Iraq is a disaster getting more disastrous. The Baker Boys' idea: cut the disaster in half — leave 70,000 troops there.

But here's where dumb gets dumber: the Bakerites want to "embed" US forces in Iraqi Army units. Question one, Mr. Baker: What Iraqi Army? This so-called "army" is a rough confederation of Shia death squads. We can tell our troops to get "embedded" with them, but the Americans won't get much sleep.

2. "Engage" Iran. This is a good one. How can we get engaged when George Bush hasn't even asked them out for a date? What will induce the shy mullahs of Iran to accept our engagement proposal? Answer: The Bomb.

Let me explain. To get the Iranians to end their subsidizing the Mahdi Army and other Shia cut-throats, the Baker bunch suggest we let the permanent members of the UN Security Council — plus, Germany — decide the issue of Iran's nukes. Attaching Germany is the signal. These signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agree that Iran should be allowed a "peaceful" nuclear power program.

Saudi Arabia is the elephant in the room (camel in the tent?) that can't be acknowledged — and the reason Baker is so desperately anxious to sell America on keeping half our soldiers in harm's way.

James III wants to seduce or bully Iran into stopping their funding of the murderous Shia militias. But the Shias only shifted into mass killing mode in response to the murder spree by Sunni "insurgents."

Where do the Sunnis get their money for mayhem? According to a seething memo by the National Security Agency (November 8, 2006), the Saudis control the, "public or private funding provided to the insurgents or death squads." Nice.

Behind the fratricidal fracas in Iraq is something even more dangerous than civil war — a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia over control of Iraq's pivotal position in OPEC, the oil cartel.

Because what is painted by Baker's Iraq Study Group as an ancient local clash between Shia and Sunni over the Kingdom of God, is, in fact, a remote control war between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the Kingdom of Oil. ...

Three regimes have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

We are told Ahmadinejad is the next "Hitler" dispite the fact that ...

- Iran is home to the oldest Jewish community in the world.

- Iran has a Jewish community of 25,000 - which is the largest such group in the Middle East outside Israel.

- Iran's Jews are also an officially recognized religious minority under Iran's 1979 Islamic Constitution.

- The capital of Tehran (the city that Ahmadinejad was Mayor of before becoming president) has 22 active synagogues.

- Jewish burial and divorce laws are accepted by Islamic courts in Iran and Jews are conscripted into the Army.

- Jews have a representative in the nation's parliament.

What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action.

Juan Cole discussed the issue as well ...

Karl Rove, then White House deputy chief of staff for President George W. Bush, received a copy of the secret Iranian proposal for negotiations with the United States from former Republican Congressman Bob Ney in early May 2003, according to an Iranian-American scholar who was then on his Congressional staff.

Ney, who pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced to prison in January for his role in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, was named by former aide Trita Parsi as an intermediary who took a copy of the Iranian proposal to the White House.

Parsi is now a specialist on Iranian national security policy and president of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a non-partisan organization that supports a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Iran and the United States.

Parsi revealed that the document was delivered specifically to Rove, in an exclusive interview with IPS. Within two hours of the delivery of the document, according to Parsi, Ney received a phone call from Rove confirming his receipt of the document. Parsi said the proposal was delivered to Rove the same week that the State Department received it by fax, which was on or about May 4, 2003, according to the cover letter accompanying it.

The identification of Rove as a recipient of the secret Iranian proposal throws new light on the question of who in the Bush administration was aware of the Iranian proposal at the time.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denied in Congressional testimony that she had seen the Iranian offer in 2003 and even chastised former State Department, National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency official Flynt Leverett for having failed to bring it to her attention at the time.

The revelation that Rove received a copy of the Iranian negotiating proposal within days of the receipt of the State Department makes it appear very unlikely that Rice was not immediately made aware of the document.

The new account of the transmission of a second copy of the Iranian proposal to the White House coincided with the release Wednesday of both the actual text of the proposal as received in Washington and of the cover memo by Ambassador Guldimann which accompanied it. The two documents contradict the suggestion by Rice and by other State Department officials that Guldimann was acting on his own in forwarding the proposal, and that it did not reflect the intentions of the Iranian government. ...

Former National Security Advisor and founding member of the Trilateral Commission Zbigniew Brzezinski tacitly warned a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that an attack on Iran could be launched following a staged provocation in Iraq or a false flag terror attack within the U.S.

Brzezinski alluded to the potential for the Bush administration to manufacture a false flag Gulf of Tonkin type incident in describing a "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran," which would revolve around "some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive' US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

During his testimony, Brzezinski lamented that the invasion of Iraq represented "a historic, strategic and moral calamity."

Brzezinski's words and his desire to see the exercse of a "moral" foreign policy ring hollow, especially when it is understood that it was the former National Security Advisor to Carter himself who was responsible for drawing up the plan to arm and train the Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen at the end of the 70's and groom Osama bin Laden as a client of the U.S.

In addition, in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Brzezinski calls for the U.S. to install itself as the world's only superpower by taking over the Middle East and using it as a lever to control what he terms the Eurasian Balkans.

Similar to the PNAC yearning for a "new Pearl Harbor," Brzezinski concludes that the realization of such an agenda will only be accomplished with the aid of "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat," which was helpfully provided by the events of 9/11. ...

Deep inside the heart of the "Green Zone", the heavily fortified administrative compound in Baghdad, lies one of the most carefully guarded secrets of the war in Iraq. It is a cell from a small and anonymous British Army unit that goes by the deliberately meaningless name of the Joint Support Group (JSG), and it has proved to be one of the Coalition's most effective and deadly weapons in the fight against terror.

Its members - servicemen and women of all ranks recruited from all three of the Armed Forces - are trained to turn hardened terrorists into coalition spies using methods developed on the mean streets of Ulster during the Troubles, when the Army managed to infiltrate the IRA at almost every level. Since war broke out in Iraq in 2003, they have been responsible for running dozens of Iraqi double agents.

A look into the history of the secretive JSG or Force Research Unit (FRU), the cover name it operated under in Northern Ireland, reveals the extent to which the British government supports and engages in acts of terrorism in order to further its agenda in occupied territories. Iraq, as it turns out, is unsurprisingly no exception.

The FRU is the same ultra secret cell of the SAS whose criminal activities in Northern Ireland were under investigation by former Scotland Yard commissioner Sir John Stevens for more than a decade, during which time it emerged that the unit was involved in the murder of civilians in Northern Ireland.

According to Detectives, 'Military intelligence was colluding with terrorists to help them kill so-called "legitimate targets" such as active republicans...many of the victims of these government backed hit squads were innocent civilians.'

In light of this it is pertinent to ask the question, are civilians in Iraq being killed as "legitimate targets"?

We have previously covered the Iraq "order out of chaos" or "strategy of tension" theories in great detail, citing Pentagon documents, esteemed researchers and the testimony of Congressmen and Ambassadors.

All agree that it is entirely plausible to suggest that the US and British governments are operating an underlying strategy which serves to keep the country mired in turmoil to justify the continued presence of occupational forces.

In many cases the evidence suggests that the armed forces role is to prod terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them to "quick-response" attacks. The FRU revelations of recruiting, training and equippingterrorists in Iraq is thus telling.

An even more startling question comes to mind, are everyday ground troops being killed in attacks that their higher ups either have extensive knowledge of or have actually coordinated themselves?

Recently there have been reports of US soldiers being killed by insurgents wearing American military uniforms. Iraqi officials said the gunmen disguised their intent with uniforms, American flak jackets, guns and a convoy of at least seven GMC sport utility vehicles, which are usually used by American officials in Iraq.

It is possible that insurgents may have been able to lay their hands on a couple of uniforms, but where did they get a whole convey of vehicles from?

Top ten war profiteers (annotated)

1. AEGIS

2.BEARING POINT

3.BECHTEL

4. BKSH & ASSOCIATES

5. CACI AND TITAN

6. CUSTER BATTLES

7. HALLIBURTON

8. LOCKHEED MARTIN

9. LORAL SATELLITE

10. QUALCOMM

www.snipr.com/ConnectIranDotsNOW

Thanks for slogging your way down here to the bottom, where I'll post my little remark. I know its buried under all the BIG POSTS meant to overwhelm... saying LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME, ignore all other posts. Sigh.

Sing2, do you walk around town with a BIG billboard and bullhorn? No, could it be because there are RULES, either unspoken or codes that enforce civil behavior in person. Oh, well, not for me to say here. The message is lost in the rudeness.

I digress...

I logged on to say congrats on your honor of Best Person on Countdown. I was one of the gazillion viewers on Friday. I time shifted all my shows on Monday, so I got this news and listened to your radio show on Tuesday morning. We had to watch our beloved Red Sox & Lester's no hitter! Sometimes life is SO GOOD!

Also, I have a TIP about your Iraq Slogger format problem... even though the site is subscription, you can read it on a RSS agregator like Bloglines, which will process your login and dish out the stories in a more normal format. Even the RSS reading ability of Firefox would be an improvement. Give it a whirl.

Thanks for your work, too, dear Vanessa!!

I have got to call in my 'Ask Dr. Maddow', giggles...

Dear AAR: Give Sam Seder a show 5 days a week. Dear MSNBC: Give Rachel her own SHOW on the TV Machine. Thanks for your kind attention to these details. ~ me

Just saw the show today of your joint appearance with Ferraro. You were incredibly gracious. She dominated the entire interview with a very slanted and embittered view of the campaign. You tried to elevate the conversation acknowledging the difference in perception and the filters we all have. Thank you, although I wish Meredith could have reigned her in a bit. Maybe you can elaborate on the issue of perception when it comes to the women most adamant about HRC. It is as if they identify with her in the most emotional way, every possible slight is perceived as a huge insult. I am 47 and agreed with you entirely today. It is a generational gap, I seem to be on the threshold with many peers pro Hilary and very much in agreement with Ferraro.
Also, why is it that there is constant music playing in the background in your first hour with "Race to the White House" I can't listen to it very well, voices get drowned out.

Obama has Wright.
McCain has Hagee, Parsely, et al.
HILLARY HAS DOUG COE.

Obama's Rev. Wright is a total Progressive clergyman, doing the charitable work and supporting social justice through clear thinking and awareness of historical context.

McCain's pastors Hagee and Parsely and the rest of his group of Christianists with reactionary ideology and profiteering tactics, are total opportunists and succeed in their ambitions by manipulating their "flocks" (read that as $HEEP), and obviously act as petty crooks fingering their marks.

Hillary's Doug Coe of The Fellowship (aka The Family) is THE FASCISTS' PASTOR. Doug Coe works to fashion the death of Democratic Freedoms and insert THEOCRACY instead. And he admittedly, by choice, uses the methods of Hitler (see his written instructions to his devotees, below)! Doug Coe's goals are the goals of an anti-Constitution degenerate who desires to mold a new world religious order based on a twisted "morality" of solidarity and obedience to Authority in a fascist context!

HILLARY'S CONNECTION TO DOUG COE AND THE FELLOWSHIP MUST BE MADE CLEAR AND KNOWN! It's an anti-Constitution connection. It is a NEO-CRUSADE position.
------------------

Further reading on The Fellowship (aka The Family):

The Nation, "Hillary's Nasty Pastorate," by Barbara Ehrenreich

Harper's Magazine March 2003, "Jesus plus nothing" by Jeffrey Sharlet

Mother Jones October 2007, "Hillary's Prayer" by Kathryn Joyce and Jeffrey Sharlet

---------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Hillary Clinton clearly expresses how she shares the radicalized views of the fascistic reactionary religious right when she repeatedly makes irresponsible, incendiary, NeoCrusade-mongering statements about "obliterating Iran" and makes a domestic anti-progressive Crusade of denouncing a progressive liberation pastor like Rev. Jeremiah Wright! Hillary is giving us very nasty warning glimpses of what her praying with Doug Coe has wrought in her own life, and we'd better heed them! (Remember, the reason Bush has used the term "Islamo-fascists" is because he chooses to divert attention from the actions of Christo-fascists.)

ADDENDUM:

Why is Hillary (as well as many other U.S.government officials) alligned with this The Fellowship and its goal of THEOCRACY in the U.S.A. and the world?

Hillary's participation in The Fellowship is alarming, and more alarming than anything that she has been mudslinging about Obama and Rev. Wright.

Hillary's participation in The Fellowship is not about "personal belief" and questioning her about The Fellowship is not a religious test as the Obama/Wright flap has been; by the way, such a religious test would be forbidden by the Article Six of the Constitution. No, The Fellowship (aka The Family) steps outside the bounds of religion into THEOCRACY. That's because The Fellowship has goals of directly influencing government and removing separation of church and state. We have every right -- indeed DUTY -- to question Hillary about her longtime work with an organization that holds theocratic intent, a clear intent that goes against our Constitution and its guarantees of religious freedom!

It frightens me to think that Hillary will get any further -- either in 2012 or maybe even sooner if she takes the nomination at the last minute (I suspect the recent illness of the head of the traditional Liberal Dems, Ted Kennedy, will stengthen Hillary's position in whipping up the DLC fervor), without ever answering to the American People about the goals she shares with The Fellowship.

As an introduction, the following is an excerpt from a Harper's Magazine article "Jesus Plus Nothing: Undercover with America's Secret Theocrats" by Jeffrey Sharlet, March 2003.

"....I ran into Doug Coe [leader of The Fellowship since 1969], who was tutoring Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Kansas. A friendly, plainspoken man with a bright, lazy smile, Coe has worked for the Family since 1959, soon after he graduated from college, and has led it since 1969.

Tiahrt was a short shot glass of a man, two parts flawless hair and one part teeth. He wanted to know the best way “for the Christian to win the race with the Muslim.” The Muslim, he said, has too many babies, while Americans kill too many of theirs.

Doug agreed this could be a problem. But he was more concerned that the focus on labels like “Christian” might get in the way of the congressman's prayers. Religion distracts people from Jesus, Doug said, and allows them to isolate Christ's will from their work in the world.

“People separate it out,” he warned Tiahrt. “'Oh, okay, I got religion, that's private.' As if Jesus doesn't know anything about building highways, or Social Security. We gotta take Jesus out of the religious wrapping.”

“All right, how do we do that?” Tiahrt asked.

“A covenant,” Doug answered. The congressman half-smiled, as if caught between confessing his ignorance and pretending he knew what Doug was talking about. “Like the Mafia,” Doug clarified. “Look at the strength of their bonds.” He made a fist and held it before Tiahrt's face. Tiahrt nodded, squinting. “See, for them it's honor,” Doug said. “For us, it's Jesus.”

Coe listed other men who had changed the world through the strength of the covenants they had forged with their “brothers”: “Look at Hitler,” he said. “Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Bin Laden.” The Family, of course, possessed a weapon those leaders lacked: the “total Jesus” of a brotherhood in Christ.

“That's what you get with a covenant,” said Coe. “Jesus plus nothing.” [END EXCERPT]

"The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God-leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by spirit." (excerpted from Mother Jones article ""Hillary's Prayer" Oct. 2007 issue)

The Fellowship's "leader" Doug Coe has targeted government leaders mostly and when that goal is applied to leaders in government the end product is the death of separation of church and state. It's a tidy formula: Justify a rightwing governmental position on the basis of rightwing religious morality.
Indeed, Hillary Clinton, a member ever since 1993, has ALREADY proved she is personally pursuing The Fellowship's goal: she has made clear that she will embrace American rightwing majority 'morality' over government-guaranteed individual rights. "Clinton suggests as much herself in her 1990 book, 'It Takes a Village', where she writes approvingly of religious groups' access to schools, lessons in Scripture, and 'virtue' making a return to the classroom." (excerpted from Mother Jones' article.) If teaching kids religion in public school is not a poster child for the Death of separation of church and state, I don't know what is!

The main assault on separation of church and state so far has been the millions of taxdollars diverted from government programs for health and human services and given to religious groups apparently without oversight. The Clintons were responsible for beginning this assault which Bush now has increased. If legislation promotes "conservative morality", Hillary Clinton appears to be a dependable promoter and supporter. And don't forget, Hillary is for prayer in public schools.

==============
The future belongs to those who believe
in the beauty of their dreams.--Eleanor Roosevelt