I finally remembered that there is such a thing as a paper stump, and I used the GIMP equivalent to improve the darkening behind the text. I'm going to make the old posting point to the new version, and will delete the old version.
I just realized that George H. W. Bush himself proved by example that 'Under "God"' is persecution of atheists. Do you remember this 1987 or 1988 exchange?
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
There you go, 'Under "God"' means atheists should be stripped of citizenship. The vice president himself said so.
You can also see here that at least one political member of the Bush family does not, in his 'heart', shy away from quasi-Nazism. Only their surroundings prevent the sick, twisted members of this family from stripping innocent people of citizenship and rounding them up or deporting them, when it might seem convenient to do that sort of thing. But George the son is not far from eliminating the constraints in those surroundings (although simultaneously he is inches away from collapse).
If Samuel 'CAP' Alito had said during the hearings that he planned to overturn Roe v. Wade (or Griswold v. Connecticut), there is no question but that the Democrats would filibuster. But lately we have had a few of the Democratic Chamberlains mumbling that there would probably be no 'need' to filibuster. Do you know what that means? It means that Alito spared them the necessity by lying to them. Is that how Democrats wish to be?
If the Democrats do not filibuster, they will be revealed as co-dependents of the Bushist traitors, as much tied into the lies and treachery as the family of an alcoholic that provides 'cover' for his or her drug abuse. In that case, you must break the co-dependency, even though it is difficult, even though you think your whole life will collapse, for you are allowing and encouraging and a part of the malignancy.
Don't try to be politically clever about it, that's a part of co-dependency, that's the way that seeks to make use of lies.
Whats the Difference Between a Moderate Republican and a Republican?
Two disturbing, but not unexpected items in the New York Times today.
First, on the front page, above the fold, in their analsyis section, Adam Litak notes "Alito May be in the Mold of Scalia and Thomas." After reviewing the hearings, my reaction is, of course he is. That is why Bush picked him. He has been catering to the far right since he took office. Is there any doubt that a president who would lie about war and spy on U.S. citizens without warrants, would do everything within his ability to enhance his own power and limit the rights of ordinary Americans?
Second, an editiorial entitled "Pro-Choice Senators and Judge Alito" that observes the hypocrisy of these supposedly pro-choice Republicans who seem not to be doing anything to block the nomination of the most serious threat to Roe v. Wade since Robert Bork. Its fine to say your pro choice and defend a woman's riight to choose, but now that the moment of truth has come, these "pro-choice Republicans"—in the Senate and House—appear to be AWOL.
So, what is the difference between a moderate Republican and a Republican? Nothing, and America will be paying the price for it.
Actually there is a difference: the 'moderate' Republican apologizes while putting the noose over your head.