Political Screen Toys

http://www.screentoys.com/

Local/Tampa Bay: Coach Tony Dungy

James Dungy, the 18-year-old son of Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy, was found dead of an apparent suicide in his Tampa-area apartment early December 22.

Tony Dungy, the former Head Coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is a great American and devout Christian. Thoughts and prayers for his family in this time of lost. All hope that he will return to the game and bring home a Super Bowl win.

James Dungy, another fallen brother, may his soul be at peace.

Report:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2268593

Suicide Support:
http://www.befrienders.org/

Support Congressman Conyers, Jr.

Demand Censure for Bush-Cheney Misconduct & Investigate Impeachable Offenses

I am taking steps against the Bush Administration’s handling of the Iraq War and its collection of intelligence. I am going to need you to stand with me in fighting for accountability.

http://www.johnconyers.com/

Lame Duck President

G. W. Bush became a Lame Duck President approximately 140 Days after being elected to his second term. This is fastest dissention from power ever recorded in U.S. history.

The date was precisely May 1, 2005; the day the White House ended its campaign pushing for Social Security reforms. G.W. Bush proclaimed he had political capital to spend, which he wasted on these reforms. All other initiatives after this date were founded on failure. Wasted political capital and a dissention from power triggered because of a loss of faith in President George W. Bush and his Administrators because this attempt to dismantle Social Security which was void of public input and collaboration with Democratic leaders. The gamble of tampering with this 3rd rail of politics was miscalculated, resulting in a plan of failure depicting an utter lack of compassion for Americans whom depend on and worked hard for their Social Security retirement payments. A plan for reforms that showed absolute incompetents in fixing this entitlement program so that it could continue to work. Instead of attempting to fix Social Security, Bush presented ideas aimed at eliminating the program altogether sending millions of seniors (whom paid into this retirement safety net) and crippled in the streets. When it comes to a person’s money, Republican & Democrat doesn’t mean a damn thing. This is precisely why the public has lost faith in the president and his agenda. Let me be clear, there were several additional financial initiatives by this president that raised the eye brows and cause even those that voted for Bush to wonder a little bit. Social Security only proved that Bush’s intentions were truly to push reforms that benefited a very small elite class of Americans. This agenda however is not what Americans, the playing field can be level for all players.

In addition there were changes to the Tax Code, Tort Reforms, changes to bankruptcy policy, tax incentives to Oil Companies, and no-bid contracts to Halliburton Co. These over the top aggressive monetary initiatives had zero benefit to those earning less than $90,000 a year. In essence these monetary policies coupled with significant rising cost in housing, energy, and gas broke the camels back . The American people can only be stretched so far. And even today as I speak President Bush and his Administrators are doing nothing to assist American in these truly important livelihood and family matters but they daily they act to increase the wealth of already well off. I quote the movie Kingdom of Heaven, 2005 “What man is a man, if he does not make the world better”. G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney hold positions leading the entire United States of America but they will not leave it in a better state when they leave office. This facts are exactly why the American people have lost all faith in their President, G.W. Bush.

The text book definition of Lame Duck is “official in the final period of office, after the election of a successor (Oxford Dictionary1997)”. In addition Checks & Balances Blog also defines Lame Duck as a president whom is rendered incapable of governing the nation.

These definitions precisely describe the role G.W. Bush is playing now, today in American politics. The American people and even Congress are beginning to dream of what progress truly could made with a new president. It is unfortunate that G.W. Bush still has 3 years left on his term.

I pray our future leaders, children can understand those that do not support the President they know, G.W. Bush so I will offer a poem and a joke that I found on the internet that touch upon the subjects I address.

1) This brainless presidentHas led you down a shameful pathRead the figuresDo the mathNo WMD in IraqNo terror linksNo 9/11 helpThe whole thing stinksHe has created anarchy from a fearful dayHe has ineptly lostWhat was all to playJust HOW wrong can one man be?Enough to shame AmericaFor one lifetimeOr to eternity?Well, eternity is longBut his actions do ensureThe stigma of incompetenceWill outlive his tenureHe took a possible chanceStemming from a dreadful dayHe drove it into the dirtFuture generations now to payWhat a sickening lossHe has made of it allAnd at terrible costAmerica's rep to fallIt's overdue he was told To fold up his sorry tentThis sad joke, this foolThis lame duck president
-Steeleyes, cyberspace


2) Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his weekly briefing on coalition forces fighting in Iraq. He concludes his statement by saying: "And yesterday, tragically, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed fighting the insurgency."

"OH DEAR GOD, NO!" George W. Bush exclaims. "That’s the most terrible thing I’ve ever heard."
His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the president sits very still, head in hands, breathing heavily and sweating, but not saying a word.
Finally, the President of the United States, clearly devastated, looks up and asks Rumsfeld, "How many millions are in a Brazillion?"


There are 5 reasonable justifications of why a U.S. President should be or leading up to censorship, investigation, indictment, and impeachment. They are: High-Crimes and misdemeanors, incompetents, corruption, moral transgressions, and the inability to govern. Many of these are linked but can also stand alone.

No, the Constitution does not say we can remove a president for incompetents which is the focus of this paper. However, hear me if you will. The president & CEO’s of companies are removed for far lesser reasons and performance-related factors. Royal Ahold of Cees van der Hoevern, and Philip Condit of Boeing. Pressure from shareholders demanding results. As a tax paying American citizen we are all shareholders in America, demanding positive result form our President. G.W. Bush has failed. He has proven incompetent as the CEO of America.
Let me furthermore provide a specific example of G.W. Bush’s job performance as compared to other presidents.

Presidential Vetoes
Washington 1st–4th 2
Lincoln 37th–39th 7
Garfield 47th 0
Cleveland 49th–50th 414
T. Roosevelt 57th–60th 82
F. D. Roosevelt 73rd–79th 635
Kennedy 87th–88th 21
Carter 95th–96th 31
Reagan 97th–100th 78
G.H.W. Bush1 101st–102nd 44
Clinton 103rd–106th 37
G. W. Bush 107th–108th 0

Notice, the only other president with 0 vetoes was Garfield whom died in office. My analysis from this observation would be to determine G.W. Bush an “empty suit” void of intellect, compassion and inept to serve. This incompetents acknowledged now by the American people tells me that G.W. is incapable of governing the nation.

The manner in which our nation is being led today, is not how it always has been. A President has never served so poorly from Washington to Garfield to Clinton as G.W. Bush is today.

Justice: NSA Domestic Surveillance

This post will cover several items dealing with this situation.

First, Sean Hannity, his radio show and Fox News today out right lied about this matter involving President Bush authorizing domestic surveillance on U.S. citizens. Let me clear, there is a difference between wire taps on a U.S. citizen and a foreign terrorist. A terrorist is not allowed, and Democrats are not advocating they are allowed the same rights as a citizen of our nation. Mr. Hannity stated on his show that Democrats want for Security agencies to wait 72 hours before being permitted a warrant authorizing the to eyes dropping upon a U.S. citizen. This is a lie, current law states the exact opposite. Security Agencies can survey for 72 Hours before even applying for a warrant from the FISA Courts. This law is clear and Mr. Hannity who claims to be honest and a good American was & is fully aware of his misinformation on this important non-partisan issue. I hope he will correct his erroneous statements about this matter. I certainly will continue to post such misinformation on this web site.

Recent Reports show that the “NSA expanded spying before Bush’s ok”. Such letters clearly show there is something amuck within this program. A Special Independent Counsel must be convened to investigate the entirety and sovereignty of this matter. The Sarasota Tribune, a conservative newspaper reports (01/04/06) “The National Security Agency acted on its own authority, without a formal directive from President Bush, to expand its domestic surveillance operations in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks, according to declassified documents released Tuesday.” Answers must be given to the public. This statements conflicts to those of President G.W. Bush, who said “ he authorized wire taps on 40 some individuals linked to terrorists”.

In addition, there is grave concern about the scope this program; reports show that U.S. Data-mining and Telecommunications Co. were involved. If so this Program was far more extensive then is being revealed to the Public. Not a program involving only 40 individuals but possibly billions of pieces of information collected on U.S. citizens, overseen by whom? Managed by whom? Authorized by whom?

G.W. Bush and recent comments by Dick Cheney hold the position the White House can act without oversight of the Courts or Congress under the current Declaration of War on Terror. If this is so, the entire United States would currently be under a state of martial law under the sole control of the White House. Is this the Declaration of War this Congress voting on? The answer is no, the President and Vice President are utilizing the resources of the U.S. Government outside the authorities granted to them. In my opinion they should be arrested immediately by the FBI.

Who authorized surveillance on U.S. citizens without a warrant, and who will be put in prison for 5 years as mandated by law for such a violation of the U.S. Constitution?

Your comments are welcome.

White House Acts to Cover-up scandal:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DOMESTIC_SPYING_PROBE?SITE=IADES&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME

-Anthony Brooks, Checks & Balances Blog

Petition on Domestic Surveillance

Senator Barbara Boxer is organizing a petition to be delivered to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, urging him to hold hearings into G.W. Bush's alleged illegal insistence on conducting wiretaps without first going through the minimal procedures required to get warrants from the FISA court. Read all about it, and sign the petition, http://ga4.org/campaign/wiretaphearings

3 Wars in Five Years

The War in Iraq, The War in Afghanistan, The War on Terror

The United States of America is pursuing 3 simultaneous Wars. Some say the War in Afghanistan has been won. The War in Iraq & on Terror are to be determined.

After 5 years of Republican rule, will these Wars be the only legacy made?

A Call to Progressives: Investigate Bush!

I must speak frankly about the Progressive Movement because I believe all camps can realistically achieve their goals but only by putting aside our natural inclinations to be autonomous and form a more unified movement. Current Methods utilized by our organizations & members are unrealistically applicable to achieving our goals.

What do I mean? We have not won elections, and we are not raising enough money.

We need change, not just within our opponents the ‘Radical Republicans’ but within our very Progressive/Liberal Organizations and Approaches.
I have been involved with crazy protest to formal Democratic Party meetings and I observe that we have forgotten something that may seem fuzzy but is the Truth and strength of our cause. There is Power in numbers.

The strength of our opponents lies in there is power in money.
But we have the numbers, however too many liberal groups don’t even have the desire to form sincere coalitions with other organizations possessing the same goal. We must unify and then move our People or we will continue to loose at the ballot.

We must move Progressives to:
1) Vote, 2) Demonstrate 3) Educate 4) Raise Money

Move.On, the Democratic Party, Civil Rights/Liberties Groups, Veterans for Peace, Camp Casey, Hollywood, Religious Institutions, and Unions (just to name a few) cannot and will not win until we suck it up and work together.

I pose this question? What Tangible things are the Movement doing to push its goals?Demonstrations in themselves are a waist of resources if they are not accompanied with a barrage of other coordinated strategies.

Exhibit #1) One Official National Campaign & Petition circulated by all organizations and activist could have been distributed at the Mass Demonstration on Sept 24th - 26th 2005 collecting over 100,000 verifiable signatures. We now should develop and disseminate a Campaign & Petition adhering to legal standards so that it can be recognizable by and acted upon by the Government. This Central Petition could then be presented to the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress.

Exhibit #2) The Time Line. From personal observation, Progressive Organizations and the Democratic Party are setting Timelines for 2006, and placing greater emphasis on 2008. These plans are setting the Movement up for failure. Push the timelines and focus the present energies of these citizens Now! The People of our country are speaking up Now! We cannot wait until 2006 to gamble on Congressional Races, and 2008 to place our full hand on one Presidential race. Our strategies need to pick up Now! We need to push to End the War in Iraq Now, to Have Investigations Now, to Stop Legislation Now, to Impeach the President Now! All of these in addition to directing resources towards the elections of 2006 & 2008. We cannot simply focus on Candidates & Election Cycles but also on our issues.

Exhibit #3) The Constitution must be the foundation for our agenda. Dissenting arguments & Ideological insignificancies against the Iraq War and Bush’s initiatives as President have no merit if they are not in relation to what we believe to be illegal actions in violation of our Constitution and other laws. Furthermore, Conspiracy Theories and Ideological Views may very well be true, but not credible until they are proven. We must work within the United State’s system of Democracy to make change and push for non-partisan investigation of these credible theories & allegations.

A) Define High Crimes and Misdemeanors according to the Constitution clearly & unbiased. State these definitions along with the Movements accusations in speeches and publications.

B) Define what is meant by War Crimes and Humanitarian violations as applicable to the Constitution, Geneva Conventions, matters of Imprisonment, Due Process, and International Laws. According to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. President can be removed from office in violation of International Laws, Agreements, Obligations and possibly violations of Standards of Human Rights.

C) Finally, there is a matter that has not been addressed but I believe could lead to resignations from President Bush to Prime Ministers Tony Blair to Cabinet Secretaries to Military Generals. The United Sates and our closet ally Great Britain are Democracies, specifically the U.S. is a Republic. However boring and insipid it may seem, the Chief Executive (President G.W. Bush) knowingly not adhering to the principles of Democracy and authorities given within the Constitution is criminal. The Constitution of the United States of America the cornerstone of our society grants the People the Power of Oversight via the Congress. The Constitution grants Congress the power of investigation which approximates the power of Oversight.

Let us discuss the matter of Information provided to the Public as it relates to Congress, the United Nations, and International Organizations specifically in regards to Declaring War and its direct relationship to the Constitutionally Power of Oversight by the People. The President nor anyone in the Government has any Right, Constitutional Power, nor Authority to “fix”, alter or manipulate such information in any form specifically in relation to Declaring War. In my opinion this would not only be defined as an act greater than a “High Crime & Misdemeanors” as required by the Constitution for Impeachment but synonymous to Treason. By American Law, Treason is a capital offense, punishable by death.

Am I wrong? Such an act I assert has been committed by President G.W. Bush has and is causing unjustified American deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan? This duty in providing unadulterated information specifically in the matter of War is, and I cannot say any more strongly, a sacred duty placed at the responsibility of our President , Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.The Progressive Movement needs bright lawyers with clear unbiased, non-partisan minds to explore this Constitutional Power of Oversight belonging only to the People via Congress. In light of recent events we certainly cannot rely on any ‘Radical Republican’ to stand up with integrity.

This Power of Oversight must also be evaluated as it relates to Government Officials, Agencies & Offices providing information and in light of Hurricane Katrina services to the Public. The duty of the President and Congress, if any and if so the appropriate punishment for this derelict and/or abuse of these offices of Public Service.

There are also other issues that have been effectively mucked up by the White House. They include but are not limited too Information provided to the Public and too Congress in relation to this Constitution Power of Oversight, clear unethical & immoral correlations between Dick Cheney his role as Vice President, his former position as Secretary of Defense, his relationships with the Oil Industry, and how this literally ties into the company of Halliburton. President Bush’s role as President as it relates to the Oil Industry and his knowledge of unethical acts involving his Vice President. And even more pressing possible illegal and Impeachment violations of the U.S. Constitution in regards to Domestic Surveillance.

What I believe is urgent and must be pushed aggressively by the Movement and other agreeing citizens are a Series of Independent Non-Partisan (not bi-partisan) Investigations to answer these questions. I speak respectively to my Republican and Conservative friends, you call many assertions stated in this letter as lies or conspiracy theory. If you are truly honorable to the flag of our great nation you cannot object and I pray you will join in this call demanding for such Investigations. Influenced by no Political Party, but only guided by American Standards of Justice.

The White House and Congress are fully aware it is their interest to prevent Independent Investigation (s). But I ask you, is this suppressment of investigation (s) in the interest of you, your family, your money and your nation?

Budget Cuts Hit Programs for the Poorest

December 27, 2005 · As Congress wrapped up its work last week, most of the headlines were about renewing the Patriot Act and drilling for oil in the arctic. Gaining less notice were several bills that would dramatically cut programs aimed at low-income Americans.
One was the annual spending for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Its final passage went almost unnoticed Wednesday night, because the Senate declined to take a roll call on a measure that reduces funding for popular social programs by more than $1 billion.
Lawmakers then passed a second spending bill that lops another 1 percent from the same programs.

According to Bob Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the cuts include a $350 million reduction in child and family services programs, including Head Start, a cut of 4 percent, he says. That means there will be 25,000 fewer Head Start slots for low-income children.

A separate budget bill approved by the Senate Wednesday got somewhat more attention, after Vice President Dick Cheney cast a tie-breaking vote.
That measure would reduce spending for Medicaid, Medicare and other major health and welfare programs.

"Today what we voted on means that we're going to cut entitlement spending, slow that growth by $40 billion," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). "It demonstrates fiscal responsibility. It shows that we're going to eliminate wasteful Washington spending."
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) said that Democrats were overreaching when they claimed the cuts would hurt poor people.

"What we've done here today is we've made some changes to those programs that make those programs better, more efficient and more targeted to the people in need," Santorum said. "That is not cutting benefits to those who are entitled to entitlements; it is making those programs work better and in the context of more fiscal responsibility."
But Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities disagreed.

"Rhetoric saying things like 'Oh, this just slows the rate of growth' makes it sound like low-income families are getting expanded benefits and the benefit will simply expand a little less. That is flatly not true," Greenstein said.

"No knowledgeable person who follows the low-income programs would accept the view that there's no pain to needy and vulnerable people in this bill," he added.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would, among other things, cut funding for enforcement of child support, resulting in children losing some $8 billion. Also, poor families would pay more for their health care. And seniors would have a harder time qualifying for nursing home care.

Greenstein says one of the most potentially damaging provisions would require those applying for Medicaid to present proof of citizenship -- either a birth certificate or passport.
Many low-income Americans don't have access to their birth certificates -- or don't have one at all.

For example, African Americans born in the south in the 1930s and '40s -- as many as 20 percent, according to one study -- don't have birth certificates because hospitals wouldn't accept black women in labor.

As a result, Greenstein says, "We're facing the prospect of significant numbers of elderly black Americans being thrown off of Medicaid because they can't provide a birth certificate -- because they weren't born in a hospital due to discrimination."
The budget bill that passed the Senate by one vote, however, is not yet on its way to President Bush. Senate Democrats forced a small change that requires the House to vote again. So there could be further revisions.

That prospect has given groups that oppose the measure another month to try to reverse the handful of votes that would change the outcome.
The seniors group AARP is leading the opposition.
"We're gonna give it our best shot," said AARP's David Certner, "to really educate people what is in this bill, why the choices that were made in this bill were so bad, why it was such a problem to go after poor people on Medicaid and deny people long-term care, and yet give a pass to the pharmaceutical industry and the managed care industry."

Certner was referring to the fact that negotiators for the House and Senate dropped provisions that would have cut spending at the expense of drug and managed-care companies.
For example, one jettisoned provision would have required drugmakers to offer deeper discounts on drugs sold to Medicaid. Instead, most of the reductions in federal outlays rely on boosting the amount that low-income Americans must pay for prescription drugs.


My Opinion: The Iraq War alone cost America $80 Billion Dollars a Year. The Government needs to cut from the Department of Defense and take care of its citizens. Contact your Representative and let them know you do not support how the are spending your Tax Dollars. And that thier vote for this Budget will cost them your vote.

NPR Reports:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5071313

Why Nominate Samuel Alito?

“To Save Bush’s Ass”

There is growing information bringing forth revelations of why G.W. Bush has nominated Samuel Alito.

It is becoming ever more clear why G.W. Bush first nominated Harriet Miers and now, another friend of his, Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These 2 different persons, of extremely different qualifications but possessing 2 similar characteristics: loyalty to Bush and possessing the same elite social affiliations.

G.W. Bush is being faced with several legal disasters that could lead to his Impeachment and/or criminal trial. In his interest Bush has nominated persons that have shown they place loyalty, political ideology, social affiliations, justice, and truth above the rule of the Constitution.

Let me be strongly clear about this situation with Domestic Surveillance, authorized by now seating President G.W. Bush and executed by the NSA. I am not outraged about such a Program, but I am outraged that the Courts were overridden in this matter. President Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton are in question but G.W. Bush is. The Office of President does not have hold judicial authority nor legislative powers which all were used in this situation authorizing ‘warrants’ to be issued upon U.S. citizens without first being heard thru the FISA Courts. Let me very clear, because all you Bush supporters fail to hear what folk like me are saying. I don’t give a damn about foreign terrorist, but when it comes to a U.S. citizen flat out, established law must be followed with ZERO deviation.

These legal disasters that G.W. Bush may soon be investigated on include matters dealing with the Iraq War, Habeus Corpus, International Law, Human Rights, War Powers Authorized by Congress specifically for the Iraq War, Domestic Surveillance & Wire Taps on U.S. citizens. The Supreme may be asked to rule of such matters.

President G.W. Bush is fully aware that Nominee Samuel Alito will vote in his favor, and that is precisely why his nomination must not pass. Judge Samuel Alito is simply a nominee to the Supreme Court, he is not yet a Justice, to serve for life.

AP Reports on Alito
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps for national security when he worked at the Reagan Justice Department, an echo of President Bush's rationale for spying on U.S. residents in the war on terror.

Then an assistant to the solicitor general, Alito wrote a 1984 memo that provided insights on his views of government powers and legal recourse — seen now through the prism of Bush's actions — as well as clues to the judge's understanding of how the Supreme Court operates.

The National Archives released the memo and scores of other documents related to Alito on Friday; the Associated Press had requested the material under the Freedom of Information Act. The memo comes as Bush is under fire for secretly ordering domestic spying of suspected terrorists without a warrant.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Monday he would ask Alito about the president's authority at confirmation hearings beginning Jan. 9. The memo's release Friday prompted committee Democrats to signal that they will press the conservative jurist about executive powers.The memo dealt with whether government officials should have blanket protection from lawsuits when authorizing wiretaps. "I do not question that the attorney general should have this immunity," Alito wrote. "But for tactical reasons, I would not raise the issue here."Despite Alito's warning that the government would lose, the Reagan administration took the fight to the Supreme Court in the case of whether Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, could be sued for authorizing a warrantless domestic wiretap to gather information about a suspected terrorist plot.The FBI had received information about a conspiracy to destroy utility tunnels in Washington and to kidnap Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser, to protest the Vietnam War.In its court brief, the government argued for absolute immunity for the attorney general on matters of national security."The attorney general's vital responsibilities in connection with intelligence gathering and prevention in the field of national security are at least deserving of absolute immunity as routine prosecutorial actions taken either by the attorney general or by subordinate officials."When the attorney general is called upon to take action to protect the security of the nation, he should think only of the national good and not about his pocketbook," the brief said.Signing the document was Rex E. Lee, then the solicitor general, officials from the Justice Department and Alito.Alito's analysis about the court and the need for an incremental legal strategy proved prescient. The case ultimately led to a 1985 ruling by the Supreme Court that the attorney general and other high level executive officials could be sued for violating people's rights, in the name of national security, with such actions as domestic wiretaps."The danger that high federal officials will disregard constitutional rights in their zeal to protect the national security is sufficiently real to counsel against affording such officials an absolute immunity," the court held.However, the court said Mitchell was protected from suit, because when he authorized the wiretap he did not realize his actions violated the Fourth Amendment.The decision was consistent with the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in 1972 that it was unconstitutional for the government to conduct wiretaps without court approval despite the Nixon administration's argument that domestic anti-war groups and other radicals were a threat to national security.Alito had advised his bosses to appeal the case on narrow procedural grounds but not seek blanket immunity."There are also strong reasons to believe that our chances of success will be greater in future cases," he wrote. He noted that then-Justice William H. Rehnquist would be a key vote and would recuse himself from the Nixon-era case.The documents were among 45 released by the National Archives as the holiday weekend approached. A total of 744 pages were made public. The White House and Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, dismissed any link between the 1984 memo to Bush's authorization of electronic surveillance without a warrant to thwart terrorism. "Any connection between Judge Alito's 1984 memorandum and the current discussion of terrorist surveillance by the NSA is a real stretch," Cornyn said in a statement. But Democrats seized on the memo and vowed to press Alito on the matter at his confirmation hearings. "At a time when the nation is faced with revelations that the administration has been wiretapping American citizens, we find that we have a nominee who believes that officials who order warrantless wiretaps of Americans should be immune from legal accountability," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. Bush picked Alito to take the Supreme Court seat held by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. Among the documents released Friday was a June 1985 memo in which Alito said abortion rights should be overturned but recommended a roadmap of dismantling them piece by piece instead of a "frontal assault on Roe v. Wade." The June abortion memo contained the same Alito statements as one dated May 30, 1985, which the National Archives released in November — but with a forward note from Reagan administration Solicitor General Charles Fried acknowledging the volatility of the issue and saying it had to be kept quiet.

"I need hardly say how sensitive this material is, and ask that it have no wider circulation," Fried wrote.

Alito, a federal appellate court judge, has been seeking to assure senators that he would put his private views aside when it came time to rule on abortion as a justice. O'Connor has been a supporter of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling affirming a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. “