PETA's religious intolerance
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

PETA seeks confrontation with nearly all of the world's major religions and goes out of its way to offend hundreds of millions of spiritual people.

New CCF Report: PETA Offends People Of All Faiths

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been widely criticized for its campaign comparing Nazi Holocaust victims to farm animals, its blind insistence that Jesus was a vegetarian, and it callous attempts to cheapen the symbols and rituals of Roman Catholicism. But a new report from the Center for Consumer Freedom indicates that these offensive gestures are just the tip of a larger iceberg. Click here to read the press release, and then download a copy of Holy Cows: How PETA twists religion to push animal "rights."

This eye-opening report includes an inventory of scripture contradicting PETA's claim that only vegetarians can be observant Christians, Jews, Mormons, and Muslims.

A limited number of bound, printed copies are available to religious leaders and credentialed journalists. Just drop us an e-mail, and include your affiliation and postal mailing address.

Introduction

"[H]owever sympathetically you interpret the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, it puts animals in a fundamentally different category from human beings ... I think in the end we have, reluctantly, to recognize that the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is our foe."

- Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation and PETA's philosophical godfather

At the "Animal Rights 2002" national convention, Animal Liberation author and avowed atheist Peter Singer lamented that "mainstream Christianity has been a problem for the animal movement." Two days later at the same event, a program director with the Fund for Animals issued a warning: "If we are not able to bring the churches, the synagogues, and the mosques around to the animal rights view," he cautioned, "we will never make large-scale progress for animal rights in the United States."

In the hope of converting Planet Earth's religious majority into vegetarians, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has taken these challenges seriously. The group regularly searches for "faith-based campaigners" to spread the gospel of vegetarianism. And like Peter Singer, acknowledged by PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk as her life's inspiration, the group's own odd evangelism actively seeks to confront and challenge the beliefs of Jews, Catholics, Protestant Christians, Mormons, and Muslims -- often in deliberate defiance of their respective scriptures.

PETA generally avoids alienating Hindus, whose "bad karma" prohibitions against killing most animals have endeared them to animal rightists. But Hindu law expressly permits eating meat. Similarly, the Buddhist world has (so far) been spared PETA's impious tantrums, although many Buddhists eat meat -- including the Dalai Lama.

In its religious outreach, as with everything else the group attempts, PETA has blindly pursued offensive strategies without regard for the consequences. Instead of earning a reputation for "kindness," "compassion," and other qualities associated with religious faithfulness, PETA pursues campaigns that offend, provoke, and otherwise show contempt for the faithful.

PETA claims -- despite ample evidence to the contrary -- that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. (The six-volume, 7,000-page Anchor Bible Dictionary doesn't even include an entry for "vegetarianism.") A PETA website urges Muslims to eat no meat, in open contradiction to the Qur'an.

PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards and advertisements taunt Christians with the message that livestock (not Jesus) died for their sins.

PETA declares, contrary to a wealth of rabbinical teaching, that ritual kosher slaughter is inherently cruel and barbarous. It directs its Jewish members (and any other Jews who will listen) to abstain from eating lamb during the Passover seder. And the group's infamous "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.

Along the way, PETA has considered "Thou Shalt Not Steal" a commandment of convenience, lifting copyrighted materials without permission from a Catholic religious order, a popular television show, and even the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. PETA's mission to bring carnivores under the tofu tent routinely ignores prohibitions against "taking the Lord's name in vain." And the group's official endorsement of arson and other violence against animal-rights targets comes most often from its leading parsnip pulpitarian, a man who publicly holds himself up as an example of "Christian mercy" while privately advocating "blowing stuff up and smashing windows" and "burning meat trucks."

Because of PETA's obnoxious and often hateful rhetoric (and its brazen association with the violent underbelly of the animal rights movement), its voice is frequently condemned by mainstream religious leaders and increasingly unwelcome among worshippers.

Click here to download a copy of the full report

Center for Consumer Freedom ~ Animal Rights ** New CCF Report: PETA Offends People Of All Faiths

Move over, Cindy: Bush singles out other military mom
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

MOVE OVER, CINDY: BUSH SINGLES OUT OTHER MILITARY MOM

NAMPA, Idaho - President Bush today took direct aim at Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protester who has set up camp near the Bushes Texas ranch and purports to speak for military moms who, like her, have lost a son in the Iraq war.

Speaking to hundreds of Idaho National Guardsmen, the president singled out military mom Tammy Pruett of Pocatello, Idaho, whose husband and five sons have all served in Iraq.

"Tammy has four sons serving in Iraq right now with the Idaho National Guard: Eric, Evan, Greg and Jeff. Last year her husband, Leon, and another son, Aaron, returned from Iraq, where they helped train Iraqi firefighters in Mosul.

"Tammy says this -- and I want you to hear this -- 'I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country.'

"And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in. America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts."

The crowd, made up mostly of military family members, broke into cheers and chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

Drudge Report Exclusive ** Move Over, Cindy: Bush Singles Out Other Military Mom

Anti-war libtards taunt wounded soldiers at Army hospital
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: War protestors mock, harass wounded vets at hospital
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS TARGET WOUNDED AT ARMY HOSPITAL

A movie would never have the nerve to depict screaming protestors, mocking wounded soldiers, saying their sacrifice was for a lie and lining up fake caskets in front of visiting family members. It is too shocking, too evil, too true.

Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital

See Marc Morano's Video Report

Washington - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.

One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.

But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.

At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.

"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.

Related Story: Anti-War Crowd Backs Notorious Dictators, Communists (Jan. 19, 2005)

Cybercast News Service ~ Marc Morano ** Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital

Cindy Windy calls son's killers 'freedom fighters'
Mood:  spacey
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

The main stream media refused to report it, but since she's featured in USA Today as "back", having returned to Texas to continue her anti-war protest... it's time to blog the latest whacko libtard bullshit qoutes of hers.

Cindy Sheehan, left, is escorted by supporter Jeff Key at the Waco, Texas, airport Wednesday on returning from caring for her ailing mother. >>>>>

Sheehan Calls Son's Killers 'Freedom Fighters'

In an interview earlier this month, Bush-bashing Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan referred to terrorists allied with the Iraqi insurgents who killed her GI son Casey as "freedom fighters."

"Now that we have decimated [Iraq], the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country," Sheehan complained to CBS Newsman Mark Knoller.

Knoller, as well as other reporters who heard Sheehan's remarks, declined to include the outburst in his coverage.

But a video unearthed Tuesday by FreeRepublic.com captured Sheehan's comments on tape.

KNOLLER: You know that the president says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don't you believe that?

SHEEHAN: No, because it's not true. You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state.

But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country. [END OF EXCERPT]

News Max.com ~ Carl Limbacher ** Sheehan Calls Son's Killers 'Freedom Fighters'

Lynne Stewart speaker-terror fan, Cindy Windy's own words say it all
Mood:  spacey
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Lynne Stewart supports terrorists and the 'peace' movement is a front for America haters and anti-semites. Take a look at the words and actions of some of these people. Scroll down to a section about Cindy Sheehan who is a first-class moonbat.

SFSU Hosts a Terrorist

By Lee Kaplan

Lynne Stewart

"Why can't we get anyone but criminals to come here to SFSU and speak?" Robert Journey, treasurer of San Francisco State University College Republicans asked rhetorically as five members of the campus club met to attend a lecture by Lynne Stewart. The terrorist lawyer, who billed herself as a "Civil Rights Lawyer and Political Prisoner," was recently convicted of conspiracy and for passing along fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) from Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman to his terrorist followers in Egypt's Islamic Group.

Rahman is the blind sheikh responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that left six Americans dead and more than 1,000 people injured.

Her trial lasted seven months, and the jury deliberated 13 days before convicting her and two co-conspirators, one of whom (Ahmed Abdhel Sattar) was wiretapped making calls to al-Qaeda while the other (Mohammed Yousry) translated messages to be sent to a terrorist leader overseas.

SFSU College Republicans protesting Lynne Stewart visit.

Just prior to attending this event, I met Muata Kenyatta, Director of Arts and Lectures at SFSU and asked him if student activity money had gone to pay for Stewart's presentation on campus. Kenyatta replied that he wasn't sure but acknowledged that most campus groups receive such funding. He also said he had no idea who Lynne Stewart was. When I explained her background, he said SFSU needed more conservative speakers and that the present habit of bringing only leftist speakers to campus is "bad for national security if you don't have dissenting views to balance that out. The responsible thing is to show both sides."

Kenyatta is no knee-jerk Bush supporter; he expressed dismay at the Patriot Act stifling civil liberties, although he could not cite any specific examples. He felt Lynne Stewart had a right to speak on campus regardless of who she was or what she did, but he also said he would entertain the notion of having more conservative speakers come to campus as well, saying efforts to disrupt David Horowitz's speech were "sophomoric." "David Horowitz gave me a challenge and I like a challenge," Kenyatta concluded.

The International Socialist Organization at SFSU, an organization that advocates the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, sponsored Stewart's appearance along with Students Against War, and the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. Stewart's appearance was set up as part of a program to aid three students and six radical campus organizations on the SFSU campus currently facing disciplinary proceedings from the administration for interfering with and driving off military recruiters from the Bay Area campus.

The speech by Stewart was also billed as a group effort to aid Stewart and the groups that brought her to campus in their "struggle" against the United States (and tangentially, Israel). Stewart was repeatedly cited as a symbol of the "oppression" and "racism" of America, even though she is a privileged white woman.

Despite the hype, turnout was poor for the event. Although SFSU is known as one of the most radical campuses in the country, only about 35 Stewart attended the event, held at noon in the Business department. About 10 protestors were at the rear of the room bearing posters with messages that called Stewart a "Terrorist-Enabler" and reminding people that her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, had murdered innocent Americans. The protestors, in contrast to earlier ISO demonstrations against military recruiters or an earlier speech given by David Horowitz, stood quietly and politely just holding signs and made no effort to disrupt the event.

Just outside the room where Stewart was to speak, a small but noisy leftist demonstration raged on, as 10 people voiced their support for the student activists who had driven off the campus military recruiters on March 9. They held up signs that read "Military recruiters lie, Children Die!" and "College Not Combat!" An African-American woman going by the name "Pam Africa" shouted to the crowd and news cameras, "Right on to the students who will take on the tyranny of the government!" Most students passing by ignored them.

As we were lined up outside to enter the classroom where Stewart would appear, I thought I spotted Jess Ghannam, a pro-PLO activist based in San Francisco, but I wasn't sure it was him. I asked one of the students to ask his name. As the student approached, one of the students from the ISO yelled out to Ghannam, "Careful! That guy is a college Republican!"

One of the college Republicans told me the fellow shouting the warning earlier to Ghannam was David Russatano, a campus radical depicted in an earlier FrontPage story. Russatano took part in a joint Palestinian-radical demonstration attacking their political enemies during the presidential electionRussatano stood on a table, called for revolution, and called the campus cops pigs. "He starts foaming at the mouth when he sees us," commented one of the college Republicans.

Jess Ghannam

Ghannam, even back in his undergraduate days at UC Berkeley, fancied himself a Palestinian revolutionary. Born in the U.S. to a Christian Arab family from the West Bank that left for the United States, he has always railed against Israel, despite anti-Christian persecution by the Muslim majority in the Arab world. Today he is a professor of psychiatry at UC-San Francisco's medical school. He is also an inveterate liar when it comes to political issues about Israel and the United States, frequently recounting Israeli atrocities that have never occurred. Today, Ghannam is the President of the San Francisco Chapter of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

The ADC is active in the training and organizing of activists in the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who go to the West Bank and purposely interfere with anti-terrorist operations of the Israeli army. I attended once undercover an orientation for the ISM given by Ghannam where he blatantly lied trying to claim Israel was an apartheid state like South Africa. Ghannam also frequently flies to the Middle East to work with hospitals in Gaza, although most Gazan hospitals are under the auspices of the terrorist group Hamas. Ghannam also recently organized an intifada celebratory event at a middle school in San Francisco where a spokesman for the Abu Sayyef was the honored guest. Abu Sayyef is a terrorist group allied with al-Qaeda.

I met briefly Lynne Stewart's husband and chief organizer, Ralph Pointer, who denied any student activity money had been paid to bring Stewart to campus. "Lynne Stewart has done more pro bono work in her career and legal aid than anyone I know," he said. "She has serviced the black, Latino and poor white communities." He claimed the charges against his wife were ridiculous, saying she was indicted for a "conspiracy to conspire." He continued, "All my statements are colored by the fact I'm a black American who knows history, about Jim Crow, slavery and the inequalities that we face personally. When I asked him what that had to do with aiding Muslim terrorists by passing information overseas he responded, "Supporting Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist act." (Actually, it wasn't considered such once the African National Conference negotiated with the South African government that violent crimes would be distinguished from political dissent where the potential of physical harm to people was not likely.) Pointer was convicted of assaulting some Jewish women during the attacks carried out by black militants in New York in the late 1960's during demonstrations in the Oceanville-Brownville area demanding that Jewish teachers not be allowed to teach black inner city school children. Lynne Stewart married him afterward, but voiced approval of his physical attacks on Jews.

When I asked once again what any of this had to do with passing religious edicts to Muslim terrorists for Abdel Rahman, after he demonstrated his murderous intent, Pointer claimed that Abdel Rahman was never charged with the 1993 bombings of the World Trade Center!

Pointer also said his wife was no different than the Vietnamese soldiers killed in the Vietnam War. "I say this (the War on Terror) is an illegal war." He continued, "Blood for oil! There's a War on Drugs, a War on Terror, I believe that there's a war on the American people!" His message was clear: victory to the enemies of the United States.

As soon as I sat down inside I was handed the following flyer from the Students Against War:

Apparently these students aren't against all war.

The first speaker introduced was Billy Caudy from Students Against War (SAW). "People of Iraq and our soldiers are dying and need our help now!" he exclaimed. After the ritual denunciation of this "illegal and immoral war," he asserted, "The war has resulted in the deaths of 1,500 of our soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqis!" (Iraqi civilian casualties are estimated accurately at less than 20,000, although hundreds have been killed in recent months by other Iraqis and foreign terrorists, like the one flashing the victory sign in the SAW flyer's photo.) Caudy had no comment about the legality of terrorists blowing up Iraqis who attempted to vote or find jobs working for Iraq's new democratic government.

Caudy also justified the earlier rousting of military recruiters from the student union building: "It is our center and we have the right to turn them back!" He lamented the administration's disciplinary hearings against students who threatened the recruiters and made them leave.

Next up was Katrina Yeaw from the International Socialist Organization, who accused the SFSU administration of "attacking" the six students up for discipline for violating the rights of other students and the campus code of conduct.

Next up came Jess Ghannam, who was introduced this time as a leader of the Free Palestine Alliance and Visiting Professor of Ethnic Studies at SFSU. (I wondered if he was on the state's payroll and what degrees he held qualifying him as a Professor of Ethnic Studies, other than being a Palestinian flack and activist.) Considering that the SFSU administration just axed the Engineering department at the university due to budget limitations, retaining someone like Ghannam on the payroll is truly amazing.

He opened by saying, in awkward-sounding English, "For me as a Palestinian, as a man of color, a true hero is Lynne Stewart." Ghannam, would pass as a white man in any society and is the same color as more than half of Israel's Middle Eastern Jewish population, continued:

I am confronted with a system that at any moment can take me away and strip me of my constitutional rights. But I have the power to call my attorney. With what is happening to Lynne Stewart they are taking away the delusional security that Arab-Americans, people of color have ? the constitution does not apply to everybody. Arab-Americans are on the chopping block of free speech. Now they are going after their attorneys like Lynne Stewart (no other attorneys representing terrorists in the War on Terror have ever been indicted).

He continued in a sad tone, "Lynne Stewart is intimately connected to Palestine, to Oakland, to the health care infrastructure for people of color." He claimed she represented the "oppressed community" that "could lose their homes."

Ghannam then ranted, "Iraq is not only under occupation. Palestine is under occupation. Oakland is under occupation. SFSU is under occupation."

Next up came Pam Africa, who voiced support for cop killer Mumia Abdul Jamal. She claimed as a black radical the U.S. government had killed eleven people in her "family" and was really a terrorist movement "designed to stop free speech." Africa was referring to a 1985 standoff and shootout that ended when the city of Philadelphia moved in on her Black radical group, MOVE, and eleven MOVE members were killed. Years earlier, the same black radical group was involved in the killing of another Philadelphia police officer, so Africa's support for Mumia did not seem unusual.

Pam Africa

"We got a president of the Unites States who is not really the President, most people didn't vote for him. The United States is an occupied government," Africa said, "based on the destruction of the natives." She didn't explain how she or her group were "natives" as opposed to other ethnic groups, nor how President Bush is not really president after receiving more votes than any candidate in history. "Nathan Hale was a freedom fighter but Lynne Stewart is a terrorist? Tomorrow it will be the mothers and the brothers forced into battle lines to stop all the rapin', thievin' and killin' by the government. If something were to happen tomorrow, I'd be looking for a lawyer like Lynne Stewart." Her rant and diatribe drew cheers and applause from the Stewart supporters present. "Continue to be an example of resistance to tyranny!" she concluded.

Matt Gonzalez was introduced next. A former President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Gonzalez ran for mayor but was rejected as too radical even for San Francisco. He blamed the United States for terrorism: "After 9/11, the U.S. went in a wrong direction. Rather than changing our foreign policy, we repressed our own people. The Patriot Act was just waiting to be used. As part of that, Lynne Stewart was attacked. How could the other side listen in under the guise of patriotism and ruin our democracy?" He maintained the evidence against Stewart should have been found unconstitutional. "They don?t have a case," he declared months after Stewart's conviction.

Matt Gonzalez

The U.S. government actually treaded lightly in exercising its prerogatives under the Patriot Act. In fact, the attorney general's office took two years to build its case against Stewart.

More importantly, no other pro-terror lawyers have been so charged, despite the harm they do to this country, because they have not violated any law. The Bush administration would have many to choose from. More than 1,500 lawyers offered pro bono legal services to Zaccarias Moussaoui after 9/11. Ramsey Clark has represented Saddam Hussein before and after the war in Iraq. William Kuntsler (who, incidentally, hooked Stewart up with the Sheikh), Ron Kuby, Michael Tigar, Stanley Cohen (Stewart's former legal partner), and other attorneys representing suspected and/or known terrorists have never been indicted or prosecuted under the Patriot Act.

Cindy Sheehan followed this act. Wearing a sweatshirt advertising the website for United for Peace and Justice, Sheehan was interviewed outside just before the meeting by an ABC-TV news reporter. Sheehan said then that military recruiters should not be allowed on college campuses, maintaining they trick na?ve 18-year-olds with offers of money and scholarships. Tragically, Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey who was in the Army and was killed two weeks after arriving in Iraq. She claimed he was promised a job as a chaplain's assistant although once in the service was placed in a combat role and killed, certainly a moving story ? one she exploits to promote venomous anti-Americanism. "George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son," she said tearing up a bit. "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for."

Cindy Sheehan

Sheehan said she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch, the lawyer who defended an innocent Black man accused of rape in the book and film "To Kill A Mockingbird."

"They're not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror," she said. "The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush." She claimed "it costs $66,000 to recruit one soldier, not including training, and $49,000 a year to house a prisoner, yet only $6,000 per year is spent to educate a child in California. (Recruiting costs are actually $15,000 per soldier, the cost of housing a prisoner in California for one year is $26,000.)

Sheehan continued, "9/11 was Pearl Harbor for the neo-conservatives' agenda" and declared the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system." Then she raged:

We have no Constitution. We're the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog shit in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It's not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!

While one might dismiss some of Sheehan's hyperbole due to grief over her son's death, a little research about Casey Sheehan revealed that contrary to being tricked by military recruiters, Casey Sheehan had re-enlisted in the U.S. Army voluntarily when he was 24-years-old, after serving his first hitch successfully. Casey Sheehan was in fact a hero who received a Bronze Star. He was attached as a mechanic to the artillery division of the 1st U.S. Cavalry in Iraq. When a convoy of soldiers from Casey's unit was attacked in Sadr City by insurgents, Casey volunteered to join a rapid rescue force to get them out. His commanding sergeant told him he did not have to go into combat, because he was a mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was quoted telling his officer, "I go where my chief goes." He was tragically killed during the rescue attempt. The source for this story? Cindy Sheehan herself.

I also visited an army recruiting office on my way home and asked about Casey being promised a job as a chaplain's assistant only to be thrust into harm's way. The recruiter explained to me that on re-enlistment, the Army's B.E.A.R. program (Bonus Extension and Retaining) guarantees everything in writing. If Casey was a mechanic during his first hitch, that was the only thing he would have been guaranteed per his re-enlistment contract. Further research showed that a chaplain's assistant is a combat infantry position, whereas Casey was deployed in a non-combat job as a mechanic. Casey Sheehan sought combat duty for his country and should be honored for it, not used as a symbol of how evil the United States is.

The final warm up before Stewart spoke was handled by Jess Mackler from The Defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal Movement. He said, "The Supreme Court has decided that innocence is no defense. Lynne Stewart is charged with conspiring to aid and abet a conspiracy to commit terrorist attacks against unnamed people at unknown places in foreign countries. She didn't harm anyone is any way." He also said that Omar Abdel Rahman was an "innocent man," despite incontrovertible proof of his complicity in the 1993 bombings at the World Trade Center. Mackler called the prosecution of Stewart "the new McCarthyism promoted by the U.S. government" and concluded, "You wonderful people in the ISO will be the best defenders of Lynne and Mumia. We have to make the price of corruption too high to pay."

Finally, Lynne Stewart rose to speak. A roly-poly grandmother, Stewart doesn't look the part of a revolutionary and friend to terrorists. But just as her appearance was deceiving, so was her discussion about her case.

Stewart maintained all she did was disseminate some press releases relating to Abdel Rahman, which she claimed was her duty to protect her client. She was neither remorseful nor even willing to admit she made a mistake.

What she didn't say was that Abdel Rahman, being a well-known cleric and having contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (he was involved in the assassination of Anwar Sadat), was using Lynne Stewart to pass messages to tell his terrorist followers he did not support a ceasefire with Egypt ? the very reason the Blind Sheikh was being held incommunicado. He had already refused treatment for his diabetes in prison to inspire militant Islamists overseas to take action to release him before he died. (Stewart claimed the government "refused" him medication.) Nonetheless, she compared what she did with asking for a pair of glasses for a client who is under arrest and cannot read the charges against him or her.

She also never mentioned that the government had not just a few, but hundreds of recordings of her in which she discussed with Abdel Rahman how to rally his followers to return to violence, and a major turning point in her case was when the prosecution played a tape of Osama Bin Laden and his aides discussing the need to "spill blood in the fields of jihad unless Abdel Rahman was released." Over the years, she advocated violence openly at private meetings of radical groups such as Worker's World Party and the Spartacist League. Her slipup was allowing herself to be quoted advocating violence in their newspapers such as the Worker's Vanguard over several years, all of which was used as evidence against her. She was also taped at later radical leftist meetings telling people that what was getting her convicted was the fact that these groups were writing down what she said.

But Stewart's final denouncement came on the witness stand when her attorney, Michael Tigar, asked her if she knew Abdel Rahman was writing out fatwas to kill Jews and her reply was that yes, she could not deny this to him because the Blind Sheik said that killing Jews was a good thing. She and Tigar thought the jury would buy their revolutionary zeal as much as the radical types in the ISO at San Francisco State would.

The jury didn't buy it. Only the academic elite believe her.

Stewart also lashed out at former Attorney General John Ashcroft for "prosecuting a grandmother from Brooklyn," whimpering, "Why me?" She said she was out on $500,000 bail after being found guilty and was awaiting sentencing from the judge. She was now on a tour of college campuses nationwide to raise money for an appeal and to get people to write the judge and ask for leniency in her case ? both of them greatly aided by her appearance at SFSU.

All attendees received a press packet during her appearance containing a copy of Stewart's keynote speech to the National Lawyer's Guild convention. Congress once referred to the NLG as "the legal bulwark of the Communist Party"; today, they exemplify the unholy alliance between leftists and Islamists. At their national conference, Stewart referred to the NLG lawyers as "warriors" against the United States government:

We now resume our everyday lives, but we have been charged once again, with, and for, our quests, and like Hippolyta and her Amazons; like David going forth to meet Goliath, like Beowulf the Dragonslayer, like Queen Zenobia, who made war on the Romans, like Sir Galahad seeking the Holy Grail; and modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara.

Like those she calls "heroes," Stewart has blood on her hands. After al-Qaeda conducted a bombing in Bali that killed many people, she was recorded describing this as good news because it meant her client would be released. Some have theorized that the Egypt Air jet that went down over the Atlantic killing all the Egyptian Army soldiers on board around the same time may have been a result of the fatwa she released, although the Egyptian government ruled it an accident.

When time came for questions and answers, she contradicted previous, public statements. According to her own website, one of the individuals that Stewart agreed to pass messages to was Layth Shubuylat (sometimes spelled Laith Shubeialat), a known terrorist in Jordan and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who was involved in a failed assassination plot against the King of Jordan. Shubuylat also was involved in the oil for food scandal and is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and an active supporter of Hamas. Shubuylat also spent time in prison with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda leader leading the Insurgents in Iraq who are killing American soldiers. I asked Stewart at SFSU if she was aware of who Shubuylat was. She claimed she never heard the name. When I mentioned Shubuylat's links to the Muslim Brotherhood, she claimed it was a nonviolent group. (She also claimed she never heard of Iraqi terrorist Zarqawi.) Ironically, just moments later she said she has an excellent memory and never forgets a detail?except Shubuylat's name on her own website.

At the end of her speech, those who came to support this convicted terrorist-enabler gave her a loud standing ovation. They should have been ashamed of supporting a "grandmother" whose talk of civil rights and legal etiquette was really just a smokescreen for a woman who advocates murder and violence against her political opponents when the cameras and recorders are off.

Stewart requested that people write the judge in her case. Undoubtedly, you might want to comply with her requests. You may write:

Judge John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

Front Page Magazine ~ Lee Kaplan ** SFSU Hosts a Terrorist

Conservatives Sleep Better than Liberals, Says Researcher
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Odd Stuff

Conservatives sleep better than liberals, remember fewer dreams and have fewer homosexual dreams, according to a study.

Conservatives Sleep Better than Liberals, Says Researcher

Even in dreams there’s a "red state-blue state" divide – and conservatives sleep more soundly than liberals, a dream researcher has found.

Kelly Bulkeley, who teaches at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif., has been studying how self-described liberals and conservatives dream for about 13 years, and found significant differences, the Los Angeles Daily News reports.

Liberals have more dreams than conservatives, and their dreams are more "bizarre," said Bulkeley. The explanation depends upon whom you ask.

The blue state explanation is that liberals "have a more open-minded and imaginative approach to the world," said Bulkeley. "Conservatives are less imaginative and open-minded, and their dreams are less varied and less intense."

But according to red-staters, "Conservatives are more anchored, more realistic in their approach to the world. Liberals could be seen as fanciful, their heads in the clouds, unrealistic, out of touch."

Liberal women remember more of their dreams, have the poorest quality sleep – and report the most dreams about homosexuality.

Conservative men have the hardest time remembering their dreams, enjoy the soundest sleep – and report no dreams about homosexuality.

Bulkeley also found that when Bill Clinton was in the White House, conservatives had significantly more nightmares than liberals, according to the Daily News.

But since George Bush has become president, conservatives have had fewer nightmares – and liberals are having more.

News Max.com ~ Carl Limbacher ** Conservatives Sleep Better than Liberals, Says Researcher

Cable Battle: CNN head calls Fox News coverage 'meaningless nonsense'
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

On the very same day CNN spent 8 hours covering a single Pat Robertson quote...

CNN HEAD CALLS FOXNEWS COVERAGE 'MEANINGLESS NONSENSE'

CNN President Jonathan Klein implies ratings news leader FOXNEWS is mired in coverage of "meaningless nonsense," claiming: "Fourteen Americans dead, and they have Natalee Holloway on," Klein says. "And they're supposedly America's news channel."

"It's easy and it's brainless," Klein charges in a telephone interview set for publication at the NEW YORK TIMES, explaining why cable news outlets had gravitated to the Aruba story. "They're looking for an ongoing drama" along the lines of the NBC crime show "Law & Order," he said, adding, "Except 'Law & Order' doesn't do the same plot every night."

"There are an awful lot of things you can cover if you don't have people tied up with this meaningless nonsense," Klein says.

In early July, Klein pulled CNN's correspondent out of Aruba and dropped the subject from most CNN shows in the absence of new developments.

"If Jon performed as well as he talks, he wouldn't have to explain his network's dismal ratings," says Irena Briganti, a spokeswoman for FOXNEWS. "We have trounced him on every breaking news story from the London bombings and last week's events in Gaza."

The libtards lash out when they're on the ropes.

Drudge Report Exclusive ** Cable Battle: CNN head calls Fox News coverage 'meaningless nonsense'

Libtard fruitcake Justice Breyer takes 'Originalists' to task in a new book
Mood:  silly
Now Playing: POLITICS AND POLICY
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

LOL - We certainly don't want our judges adhering to the exact letter of the law now, do we?

Justice Breyer Takes 'Originalists' to Task In a New Book

When he was nominated to fill the Supreme Court's last vacancy, Stephen Breyer said he would strive to make the "law work for people." Eleven years later -- with a new opening on the court and controversy raging over the judiciary's role -- Justice Breyer wants to tell a broader audience how that should be done.

In a book slated for release next month, Justice Breyer -- among the more liberal members of the court -- gives a detailed insight into his philosophy of deciding cases, namely that the Constitution should be viewed in light of its overarching goal, which he sees as creating a participatory, democratic society. In the process, he offers a rejoinder to a longtime intellectual opponent, Justice Antonin Scalia, who advocates "originalism," or a more literal interpretation of the Constitution's meaning at the time of its writing.

"Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution" explains Justice Breyer's approach and applies it to some of the most divisive topics that come before the court. These include everything from freedom of speech and privacy rights to affirmative action and last June's Ten Commandments cases, which addressed the constitutionality of religious symbols on government property.

Such public expounding is rare on the Supreme Court. Justices have on occasion written books -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist has penned several popular works of legal history, and retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor published a childhood memoir, for instance. But on the current court, only Justice Scalia has issued a legal manifesto, titled "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," which explains his originalist philosophy. Attempts to construe the Constitution as "evolving" merely are cover for judges imposing their views of what the law "ought" to be, rather than what it is, Justice Scalia argued in that 1997 volume.

By contrast, Justice Breyer's "Active Liberty" contends that judges can undercut the democratic system the Constitution's Framers sought to build if they adhere too literally to legal text and disregard the "real world" consequences of the decisions they render.

So whereas Justice Scalia has voted to strike down campaign finance laws, arguing that they restrict free speech, Justice Breyer espouses a much different theory. He has voted to uphold such laws, arguing that they actually support constitutional values -- such as the marketplace of free ideas -- by limiting the ability of monied factions to overwhelm other points of view.

Laced with weighty references that range from the history of ancient Greece to modern administrative law, "Active Liberty" is hardly a summer potboiler. A Clinton appointee whose best known work may be the federal sentencing guidelines he helped draft in the 1980s, Justice Breyer writes more like the Harvard professor he once was than a poet or polemicist.

But with confirmation hearings slated to begin Sept. 6 for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, publisher Alfred A. Knopf pushed up the release date a month to capitalize on public interest in the Supreme Court. An excerpt will be published in Newsweek early next month. An advance copy was provided to The Wall Street Journal.

A spokesman for Bertelsmann AG's Knopf said that Justice Breyer would not grant interviews while the Roberts nomination was pending, so as to avoid the possibility of influencing that process.

Legal experts say "Active Liberty" will likely influence not only public debate but also how lawyers craft their cases. With Justice Breyer increasingly seen as a swing vote -- his were the deciding opinions in the Commandments cases -- lawyers are certain to study the book for clues to his thinking.

"For anybody who's arguing a case there, it's a must-read," says Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative advocacy group in Washington that often represents evangelicals before the high court.

"I devoured the legislative interpretation section," he says, adding that in light of Justice Breyer's chapter explaining the weight he gives to legislative history, he intends to include more references to congressional reports in briefs he is filing for an upcoming abortion-rights case.

The 161-page book, set for publication Sept. 13, aims to popularize ideas Justice Breyer has already advanced in academic lectures and articles. A judge's task, he says, is construing the Constitution in a way "that helps a community of individuals democratically find practical solutions to important contemporary social problems." He calls that freedom to participate in government "active liberty," a complement to passive liberties that protect the individual from interference by the government.

Although not a point-by-point reply to Justice Scalia's book, "Active Liberty" does in some places come close to being one. Among those that Justice Breyer thanks for commenting on early versions are three scholars whose critical responses to Justice Scalia were included in "A Matter of Interpretation."

One of them, Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, makes no secret of whose method he favors. Justice Breyer "approaches each constitutional clause as a way to making self-government work, as opposed to some antiseptic view that purports" to have a "direct pipeline to the Framers," Mr. Tribe said in an interview.

In his book, Justice Breyer contends that originalists can be just as subjective as other judges, reaching the outcome they favor by emphasizing some historical elements and ignoring others. Such a literal reading, he writes, can be "inconsistent with the most fundamental original intention of the Framers themselves."

All judges, he writes, rely on common elements when interpreting a law: "language, history, tradition, precedent, purpose and consequence." But they afford different weight to each factor, often with significant consequences for the shape of American democracy. He writes favorably, for instance, of the Warren Court of the 1950s and '60s for enforcing Civil War amendments that enfranchised African-Americans, aiming to make long-unfulfilled "constitutional promises a reality."

Like many outside observers, Justice Breyer suggests the current Supreme Court lacks a coherent approach. "While I cannot easily characterize the current court," he writes, "it may have swung back too far, too often underemphasizing or overlooking the contemporary importance of active liberty."

For example, he writes that some of the court's recent federalism decisions, while paying formal respect to state authority, may have the consequence of enlarging the federal bureaucracy and divesting local communities of control. He cites a 1997 decision that struck down part of the federal Brady Act requiring local police to conduct background checks on handgun buyers while a federal check system was being developed. Justice Scalia's majority opinion ruled it an unconstitutional effort to "commandeer" state officials.

Justice Breyer, one of four dissenters, writes in his book that such rulings impede "cooperative federalism" and force "Congress either to forgo the program in question altogether or, perhaps more likely, to expand the size of the ... federal enforcement bureaucracy."

"Why should courts try to answer difficult federalism questions on the basis of logical deduction from text or precedent alone? Why not ask about the consequences of decision-making on the active liberty that federalism seeks to further," he writes.

Rep. Tom Feeney, a Florida Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, offers an answer: "Nobody but a subjective, biased judge can determine what active liberty means." Mr. Feeney, who has been a leader among House Republicans seeking to restrain the judiciary, says a better title for Justice Breyer's approach would be "jurisprudential mysticism," since "he thinks he can somehow discern through a crystal ball or a Ouija board what active liberty should produce."

Anticipating such criticisms, Justice Breyer argues for "judicial modesty" when reviewing acts of Congress, and has been among the least likely of the court's members to vote to strike down federal laws.

The Wall Street Journal ~ Jess Bravin ** Justice Breyer Takes 'Originalists' to Task In a New Book

Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design
Mood:  spacey
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design

The al-Qaeda master plan to take over the world and turn it into an Islamic state has been revealed for the first time.

For a new book, Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein interviewed top lieutenants of the terrorist network, including the mastermind of many atrocities in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi — al-Qaeda's Second Generation is published only in Arabic, but could be translated into English.

Hussein says al-Qaeda views its struggle as a long-term war with seven distinct phases.

Phase one is the "awakening" in the consciousness of Muslims worldwide following the September 11, 2001, suicide attacks. The aim of the attacks was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby mobilising the radicals.

Phase two is "Opening Eyes", the period we are now in and which should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the "Western conspiracy" aware of the "Islamic community" as al-Qaeda continues to mould its secret battalions ready for battle.

Phase three, "Arising and Standing Up", should last from 2007 to 2010, with increasingly frequent attacks against secular Turkey and arch-enemy Israel.

Phase four, between 2010 and 2013, will see the downfall of hated Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Oil suppliers will be attacked and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Phase five will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared — between 2013 and 2016.

Phase six, from 2016 on, will be a period of "total confrontation". As soon as the caliphate has been declared, the "Islamic army" will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" that has so often been predicted by al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden.

Phase seven, the final stage, is described as "definitive victory".

Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "One-and-a-half billion Muslims", the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war should not last longer than two years.

The Age.com ~ Allan Hall ** Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design

More Young Blacks Embrace GOP
Mood:  party time!
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

Adam Hunter of Somerset, N.J., helped revive the College Republicans group at Howard University. >>>>>

More young blacks ready to embrace GOP

Some cast aside traditional loyalties

WASHINGTON - Adam Hunter, an ambitious law student with bright eyes, an easy smile, and plenty of charisma, seems practically destined for politics.

A half century ago, his grandfather helped register blacks living in rural South Carolina to vote. Hunter's father, born on a tobacco farm and taught in segregated schools, was inspired by the civil rights movement to join the Democratic Party. His parents have both headed the local Democratic committee in their New Jersey town, and Hunter himself worked as a campaign volunteer before he was old enough to vote.

Hunter, 22, is a first-year law student at Howard University, a historically black campus with a long record of liberal activism. He has political ambitions of his own -- but not with the Democrats.

Instead, Hunter, who as an undergraduate headed Howard's chapter of College Republicans, sees himself as part of a younger generation of African-Americans. He is ready to cast aside traditional loyalties to the Democratic Party and forge his own political identity.

"My father and I are not that different, ideologically, but if you look at the time period we grew up in, that's where we're different," Hunter said. "My foundation doesn't make me beholden to the Democratic Party. To me there's nothing more undemocratic than the idea that you have to vote for a Democrat or don't vote at all come Election Day."

Hunter is one of a growing number of young African-Americans leaving the party of their parents and grandparents in favor of the GOP -- or choosing not to have a political affiliation at all.

A July Gallup Poll of minorities' political opinions indicated that black voters overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party, and the percentage of African-Americans who consider themselves Republicans lingers at about 9 percent. However, according to the poll, of those blacks who vote GOP, most are under age 50 -- a generational shift that could be an opportunity for Republicans and a headache for Democrats.

Democrats have had a decades-long hammerlock on the black vote, stemming largely from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, received an estimated 88 percent of the African-American vote in 2004, 2 percent less than Al Gore won in 2000, according to exit polls.

Jeffrey M. Jones, who conducted the Gallup Poll, said it is too early to tell whether a slight increase in young black voters identifying with the Republican Party represents a long-term trend. But if those numbers rise another 5 or 10 percent next year, people should take note.

"There's a lot of hints out there that something is going on," he said. "Nothing is totally conclusive, but the more hints there are out there, the more evidence you have that this could be real."

However, Republicans, billing themselves as "the party of Lincoln," have launched a high-profile campaign to chip away at what has been a reliable voting block for Democrats. While older black voters still have strong attachments to the Democratic party, political specialists say, younger African-Americans are less likely to be bound by tradition: They grew up in an integrated society, they don't have personal memories of the civil rights movement, and they are more focused on entrepreneurship and opportunity, two of the GOP's selling points.

"The question people are going to have is, who wants to build on the civil right movement's success -- closing the wealth gap, closing the health gap, offering people real access to opportunity?" Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in an interview.

He reiterated his pitch to black voters: "Give us a chance, and we'll give you a choice."

Hunter said he's well aware of the Democratic Party's history of helping minorities; he doesn't think that means they deserve his vote 40 years after key civil rights battles. Other issues are more important to him, he says: privatizing Social Security, lowering taxes, and business development. "I strongly believe that there should be options for Americans -- rich, poor, old, young -- to invest," he said.

As some black voters drift toward the GOP, Republicans have accused the Democratic Party of expedient politics: ignoring a core constituency until it's time to vote, rather than nurturing African-Americans between elections. Some African-American Democrats share that complaint.

"I think there's an extreme danger" of losing black votes to the GOP, said Lamell McMorris, an African-American political consultant who heads the Washington-based Perennial Strategies. Democrats are still relying on their civil rights record and are not pitching new ideas to young, professional blacks seeking to build businesses and personal wealth.

"As time goes on, you're dealing with a generation of individuals who, in their mind, are very far removed from the civil rights movement," said McMorris, who is 32. "You cannot keep going on this romanticized, ideological civil rights agenda and think you can reach out to African-Americans of my generation.'"

"What the Democrats have not been able to do is to come up with a new vision, a new voice, a new perspective, a way to reach out to younger members of the African-American community," he said. "In that area, I think the Republicans have done a better job."

Hunter said he's been inspired by the Republican Party's efforts to reach out to black voters. He praised Mehlman, noting that the RNC chairman accepted the chapter's invitation to speak at Howard last spring. It was one of 17 appearances Mehlman has made around the country to recruit black voters. A GOP spokeswoman said Mehlman has held monthly strategy sessions with a group of prominent African-Americans and is seeking to recruit more black candidates for elected office.

But at Howard, where allegiances to Democrats run deep, recruiting Republicans took some work, Hunter said.

During his freshman year, Hunter said, he resurrected Howard's chapter of College Republicans, which had been dormant for more than a decade, with hopes of injecting some political diversity into campus discourse. About 60 or 70 students signed up for the group, he said, but only about 10 or 15 were committed members.

Although Hunter has considered himself a Republican since junior high school and had worked on GOP campaigns before graduating high school, he said not all Howard students were as eager to wear their political affiliation on their sleeves.

"On a black campus, it's hard to find people to stand up and say, one, I'm Republican, and two, I'm ready to go out and lead other students," Hunter said. But he noted that Howard's administration supported him by sponsoring debates with other campus political groups. Some administrators and professors said privately that they shared his political views.

Mehlman acknowledged that it will be difficult to tap into the Democrats' most reliable constituency. But he noted that in close elections, even a few percentage points can make a difference. Republicans doubled their support among African-American voters last year in Ohio -- a critical battleground Bush won by 2 percentage points -- and nearly doubled support among black voters in Michigan, Mehlman said.

Hunter's own future in the Republican Party may come later; right now, he's focused on law school and plans to become a corporate lawyer. Eventually, he hopes to return to New Jersey, he said, and run for governor or the US Senate. But it will take more than a few young people like himself for the GOP to truly make a difference.

"The Republican Party needs to work hard to understand the issues that are important to the community," he said. "Funding higher education, home ownership, African famine, genocide, AIDS -- there's still a lot of work to be done."

The Boston Globe ~ Kaitlin Bell ** More young blacks ready to embrace GOP