I thought libs were AGAINST profiling. Or is this one of those "I was aginst profiling before I was FOR profiling" Kerry stances?
It's almost funny.
I could imagine them inquiring about any other "group". The liberal howling would be deafening.
Christianaphobia? They have to do better than that. People can't evem pronounce it.
How about a list of gays and lesbians, pinko's and muslims Soros?
Better yet, step out in front of a fast moving bus.
As long as Buffett, Soros, T. Boone Pickens and their lapdogs keep panting after Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as some sort of Christian leaders--the actual leaders in getting the Gospel throughout the world are barnstorming away.
[hope those demons don't read this, LOL!]
It's becoming more and more obvious that the "We Gotta Get Religion" gig didn't work out for the Commies down at the DNC. Apparently, the 'RATS have decided that it would be easier for them to just destroy Christians than for DemocRATS to pretend to be Christians in order to get the religious vote.
How many iof these anti-American groups like Move-On and Crew dos george Soros sup[port.
Since we know Soros doesnt put out money unless he makes double back. What is he up to in his efforts to destroy America with these insane liberals.
Here's something singularly interesting. CREW's Business Manager is listed as Mayanna Prak, and the CREW website says she "assisted an ambassador in the operation of a foreign embassy", but they don't ID the embassy. Google turns it up - Cambodia.
Can't find much else on her.
Interesting. I have never heard of CREW until yesterday, but they are now in the middle of two big and unrelated stories, both breaking in the same couple of days.
Looks like they are the "October surprise" machine this time around.
The following individuals are from organizations that have the terms "Christian, Christ, Jesus" in their names.
CREW and similar groups have similarities with Islamic terrorists. Here they aim at conservative Christians.
It would be salutary if CREW would kindly provide a record of all ITS contacts. Remember, this is supposed to be a non-partisan organization for tax purposes.
WND has an opinion poll on this. Personally, I think ALL visitors to ALL administrations should be public knowledge. This sword oughta cut both ways. Besides, Christians should have nothing to fear if it shows they visited the Whitehouse - on the other hand, those who visit any 'rat administration SHOULD fear exposure.
1 Oral Arguments in Electronic Records Court Case -- On June 27, Judge Paul Friedman of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in the case of Public Citizens v. John Carlin, U.S. Archivist -- Case Number 1:96 CV02840. The American Library Association, the National Security Archive, the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, as well as individual researchers are co-plaintiffs in this case. Michael Tankersley, accompanied by Alan Morrison, presented the case for the plaintiffs and Anne Weismann, accompanied by Jason Baron, presented the government's case. The suit challenges the Archivist's promulgation of a "General Records Schedule" authorizing all federal agencies, at their discretion, to destroy the only electronic version of Federal agency records stored on agency electronic mail and word processing systems provided the agency has printed a hard copy of the electronic record on paper of microform. The complaint states that the Archivist has "improperly ignored the unique value of electronic records" and "has abdicated his statutory responsibility to appraise the historical value of such electronic records."
The government rooted its defense in the argument of content versus form, stressing that while the electronic record is not being preserved the content is being preserved in paper form. Additionally, the government's position rested on the assertion that some agencies are not as technologically sophisticated as others and preservation of content in paper format is what is realistic and that saving all electronic mail would clog the system. Judge Friedman interrupted with frequent questions: Would it be all right to destroy all memorandum, regardless of format? How could a plaintiff file an FOIA for electronic material if it has been destroyed? Hasn't the Archivist given a blanket authorization to agencies? Most corporations have record keeping policies that specify specific time periods, and if not this is suspect, why not the same for the government? If the U.S. Archivist doesn't know what electronic records are being destroyed by agencies, is he fulfilling his role as gatekeeper on preservation of federal records? Why does the government have to have one government wide plan, why couldn't it have different plans for agencies that are more technologically advanced?...</snip>
------- NCC Washington Update 3:26, 6/30/97