Saturday, May 13, 2006

This Site has some "out there" articles. They can be entertaining.

May 11, 2006

World Begins Effort To Collapse US Dollar As Brazil Begins Nuclear Production And Ejects UN Inspectors
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Russian Subscribers

Our World has taken an ominous turn these past few weeks as many of the World’s Major Powers, and in an effort to forestall further advances of United States Military Forces in their quest for complete Global Domination, have begun their long anticipated attack upon the American Dollar in the hopes that by collapsing the American economy the Military Leaders of the United States will be no longer able to finance their horrific ambitions.

Not known to the American people themselves is that oil and gas traded on the International Markets must be in US Dollars as prescribed by various International Treaties and Agreements reaching back in our history to last century, but which now Russia has joined other nations in rebelling against, and as we can read as reported by Russia’s RIA Novosti News Service in their article titled "Putin proposes creation of ruble-denominated oil, gas exchange", and which says:

"President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that a ruble-denominated oil and natural gas stock exchange should be set up in Russia. Speaking before both chambers of parliament, cabinet members, and reporters, Putin said: "The ruble must become a more widespread means of international transactions. To this end, we need to open a stock exchange in Russia to trade in oil, gas, and other goods to be paid for with rubles." "Our goods are traded on global markets. Why are not they traded in Russia?" Putin said."

President Putin’s statements reflect those of other nations in the world held hostage to American Dollars, and hence their debt, for the purchasing of oil and gas in the International Marketplace, and of which Iran is currently experiencing the full wrath of the United States because of their, Iran’s, intention to begin the purchase of their vast oil stores in Euros, and as we can see evidenced as reported by Canada’s Globe and Mail News Service in their article titled "Iran wants oil market in Euros", and which says:

"Iran took a step on Friday toward establishing an oil market denominated in euros, a plan analysts described as highly unlikely to materialize but which in theory could have serious consequences for the U.S. economy. Iranian state-run television said the country's oil ministry granted a license for the euro-denominated market, an idea first floated back in 2004, though just who would trade on it remains unclear.

Oil is currently denominated in dollars around the globe, whether through direct sales between producers and consumers or in trades made on markets in New York and London. But if one day the world's largest oil producers allowed, or worse demanded, euros for their barrels, “it would be the financial equivalent of a nuclear strike,” said A.G. Edwards commodities analyst Bill O'Grady."

To the accuracy of this Canadian statement that a switch on the International Markets from oil and gas paid for in Euros instead of American Dollars would indeed be the ‘equivalent of a nuclear strike’ against the United States is well known by the entire World, with the one exception of the American people themselves, and who likewise are unaware that the crushing burden of the largest Asian economies requirement to hold US Dollars for oil and gas payments has increase their foreign reserves to dangerous levels, and as we can see evidenced from these reports:

As reported by India’s Sify News Service in their article titled "China surpasses Japan in forex holdings", and which says, "China has overtaken Japan to become the world's largest foreign exchange holder as its forex reserves reached a record $818.9 billion by the end of 2005."

As reported by China’s People Online News Service in their article titled "Japan's foreign reserves set new record", and which says, "Japan's foreign exchange reserves totaled 860.24 billion U.S. dollars at the end of April, up 8.21 billion dollars from a month earlier and hitting new record high, Kyodo News reported on Wednesday."

To such dangers for both China and Japan, and both of whom are oil and gas dependent nations, have the Global imbalance of accumulating US Dollars for energy alone become that even though they are enemies the calls for a single Asian Currency to battle against the US Dollar are ringing louder, and as we can read as reported by the Stratfor Strategic News Service in their report titled "Asia: Research On A Common Currency", and which says:

"Finance ministers Jin Renqing of China, Sadakazu Tanigaki of Japan and Han Duck Soo of South Korea agreed May 4 to work toward a unified Asian currency. The governments agreed to set up a research team to explore the introduction of the currency by the end of 2006. Finance ministers said high oil prices and rising interest rates may threaten economies in the region."

The consequences for the United States Dollar and its Economy by the moves of both China and Japan will also be horrific to the average American citizens themselves, and as we can read as reported by the Bloomberg News Service in their article titled "Asia Is Getting Ready to Dump the Dollar Peg", and which says:

"Li Yong, China's vice minister for finance, said he had heard a ``rumor'' that the U.S. dollar was headed for a 25 percent drop. If the gossip was true, the consequences would be ``shocking,'' he said. Li's comment, which he made at a discussion on global financial imbalances last week at the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in the Indian city of Hyderabad, was aimed directly at fellow panelist Tim Adams, the U.S. Treasury undersecretary of international affairs.

The unspoken message was: ``Don't try to talk the dollar down.'' And Adams knew better than to ask, ``Well, what are you going to do about it?'' The answer to that question has already begun taking shape: Asia may be getting ready to fix its currencies to a local anchor, dumping the region's unofficial dollar peg. Even as they continue to pile up U.S. debt in their foreign- exchange reserves to keep their currencies stable against the dollar, Asian nations, China among them, are preparing for a scenario where the dollar does indeed collapse under the weight of a record U.S. current account deficit."

The effects of the United States long term agenda against its people, and in what is commonly referred to as the “Dumbing Down Of America”, is in clear evidence today as many Americans are celebrating the rise of Gold prices, and to records not seen in over 25 years, without even realizing that this rise is at the expense of their own US Dollar and Economy.

But to the greater insanity of the American people it can be seen in today’s poll that shows their average citizens reaction to the continued War Propaganda being fed them continuously by their Military Leaders and Media Organs, and as we can read as reported by the Fox News Service in their article titled "FOX News Poll: Do Not Trust Iran", and which says:

"The latest FOX News poll finds that Americans think Iran cannot be trusted, and a majority thinks Iran either already poses a threat to the United States or that it will soon. The poll finds that an overwhelming 85 percent of Americans say they do not trust Iran to tell the truth about their nuclear technology program, including large majorities of Republicans (91 percent), independents (90 percent) and Democrats (78 percent). In addition, a majority of voters thinks Iran is a threat to the United States. A quarter of the public — 24 percent — sees Iran as a “clear and present danger,” and another 33 percent think it will be a threat in the near future."

Not being told to these American people however is that their greatest danger of a nuclear armed nation lies not with Iran an ocean away, and with no way to deploy nuclear weapons against the United States, but rather lies at their very doorstep, and as we can read as reported by Britain’s InTheNews News Service in their article titled "Brazil joins nuclear elite", and which says:

"Brazil has successfully enriched uranium for fuel use, according to a government minister. Brazilian officials said they had developed refinement technology 25 times more efficient than existing procedures in the US or France.

Scientists at the facility in Resende, just outside of Rio de Janeiro, opened a new centrifuge on Friday. Speculation has intensified about the nuclear capacity of South America's largest country two years after Brazilian officials refused to allow UN inspectors access to certain parts of the facility, claiming they wanted to protect domestic technology."

The comic irony of the American people fearing Iran having nuclear weapons and not allowing UN inspections, while at the same time being entirely unknowing about the leftist nation of Brazils doing the exact same thing cannot be lost upon us.

But, it is not too the nuclear bomb programs of Brazil or Iran that matter in this new Great Game that is being played by the United States Military Leaders, it is rather the excuse being manipulated upon the uneducated and unsuspecting American people that are most important in these matters before us today.

For in the ignorance of the American people themselves lie the fate of the entire world, and like babies they sleep, caring not for anything other than their full stomachs and the lying songs of their wicked Military Leaders keeping them pacified as the World burns around them.

© May 11, 2006 EU and US all rights reserved.

[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors to protect their safety.]

Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy

Former Reagan economist exposes the Bush administration's radical departure from fundamental conservative principles
And explains why it may cost the GOP the presidency and its congressional majority
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy
by Bruce Bartlett

George W. Bush is widely considered -- by liberals -- to be one of the most politically conservative presidents in history. But many on the right have a different perspective. Among the latter are Bruce Bartlett, a highly respected Republican economist and an alumnus of the Reagan White House, who in 2000 was an eager supporter of George W. Bush (and even helped to craft the President's early tax cuts) but has since become disillusioned by his big-spending, government-expanding ways. Now, in Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, Bartlett attacks the Bush administration's economic performance root and branch -- showing how Bush has made no effort to restrain the growth of government, greatly increased domestic spending, created a new entitlement program for prescription drugs, failed to veto a single bill, and expanded both the size and scope of government in many ways quite apart from national defense and homeland security. Bartlett also explains why the Bush policies will have serious economic consequences for the country - and possibly fatal political consequences for the GOP.

"I write as a Reaganite," explains Bartlett, "by which I mean someone who believes in the historic conservative philosophy of small government, federalism, free trade, and the Constitution as originally understood by the Founding Fathers. On that basis, Bush clearly is not a Reaganite or "small c" conservative. Philosophically, he has more in common with liberals, who see no limits to state power as long as it is used to advance what they think is right. In the same way, Bush has used government to puruse a 'conservative' agenda as he sees it. But that is something that runs totally contrary to the restraints and limits to power inherent in the very nature of traditional conservatism. It is inconceivable to traditional conservatives that there could ever be such a thing as 'big government conservatism,' a term often used to describe Bush's philosophy."

Highlights of Bruce Bartlett's penetrating critique

Medicare expansion: Why the new "prescription drug benefit" may be the worst legislation in U.S. history, and will cost the nation vast sums it can't afford

How the Medicare drug benefit will inevitably lead to higher taxes and price controls that will reduce the supply of new life-saving drugs

Why the chief "beneficiaries" of the drug benefit will not be hard-pressed seniors, but big corporations

Why the Bush tax cuts have accomplished relatively little economically. Why many of its provisions are the tax-equivalent of pork-barrel spending -- costing revenue while doing little or nothing to increase economic growth or improve the structure of the tax system

Why Bush may ultimately be responsible for the largest tax increase in history, as the inevitable result of his policies -- though it may not come on his watch

Why the inevitable tax increase will probably a European-style value-added tax (VAT)

How the Administration's policies are developed with little analysis or forethought, then rammed through a compliant Congress -- leading to both economic and political mistakes that could have been avoided

Why the Bush White House has the worst record on free trade since Herbert Hoover

Why Clinton was actually better on the budget than Bush -- vetoing bills because they cost too much (Bush hasn't vetoed a single one) and significantly reducing overall government spending (Bush has massively increased it)

The Regulatory President: how, after promising to roll back Clinton's regulatory excesses, Bush has sacrificed principle to politics and allowed regulation to flourish

Why Bush's policies have far more in common with Nixon's than Reagan's -- especially in his failed attempts to woo moderates by enacting liberal programs (like Medicare expansion) that harmed the economy and GOP fortunes

Why, thanks to the Bush economic policies, Republicans are likely to suffer significant losses in 2006 mid-term elections -- and possibly the Presidency in 2008

Click here to submit a review

This Author appears to be maybe someone who is being paid to make sure the Democrats get the upper hand. Bush is so much the best President we've had and has done so much over so many obstacles that are thrown at him. I found nothing in this book that held water unless you are a liberal and then you will believe anything.

After reading the anti-Bartlett review, it is obvious that the only failure of intelligence in the past 2 1/2 years is on the part of brain-dead Bushbots who don't understand conservatism at all.

I was wondering when someone would come along and juxtapose Bush with Reagan. Who better than someone like Bartlett who was in the Reagan White House. Bush has betrayed almost every aspect of what Reagan stood for. From vastly expanded domestic government (No Child Left Behind and The Medicare Entitlement) to nation building ( When the marines were killed in Lebanon Reagan didn't invade and occupy) to targeted tax cuts. An increase in the Kiddie credit. Can you imagine Reagan doing that one. And of course there is the willingness for Bush to double the Payroll tax rate on wage earners. Bartlett hit's most of the bases and shows the true distinction of these two Republican Presidents.

How would things change if the Democrats reigned?

How would things change if the Democrats reigned?

Posted: May 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006

Nancy Pelosi is euphoric in her anticipation of moving into the speaker's office after the November elections. So sure is she of a future Democrat majority that important legislative business may have to wait until the next Congress for action. Between now and November, nothing is as important to Democrats as bashing Bush and the Republican Congress.

Republicans can lose control of the House with the loss of only 15 seats; there are at least 30 Republican seats widely seen to be in jeopardy. Should the Democrats regain control of the House, the stage will be set for retaking the White House in 2008.

John Conyers would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has already announced the creation of a special committee to investigate the Bush White House, looking for justification for impeachment proceedings. Yes, this is the same John Conyers whose staff say they have been forced to baby-sit, tutor Conyer's children, run personal errands for the congressman, and work in Conyers' wife's political campaign.

With the likes of Pelosi and Conyers at the helm in the House, the next two years will be pay back for Clinton's impeachment and for the 2000 Supreme Court decision that gave the presidency to Bush. Beyond the political retribution lies a Democrat agenda that could be far worse than even the Clinton-Gore era of idiocy.

Pelosi says that Democrats will end dependency on foreign oil by 2010 – not by opening known oil reserves in the U.S., but by looking to the heartland for biofuels. This is "sound-good feel-good" pre-election rhetoric that cannot possibly succeed.

Do the math: The U.S. consumes 394 million gallons of gasoline each day. Because ethanol produces only about 76 percent of the mileage produced by regular unleaded gasoline, the "heartland" would have to produce 518 million gallons of ethanol fuel for each day's consumption. Even blended with 15 percent gasoline for E85 fuel, the "heartland" would still have to produce 440 million gallons of ethanol each day.

To meet this production requirement, an area more than twice the size of Texas – 358 million additional acres – would have to be planted in corn. Currently, all land planted in all crops totals only 442 million acres.

This simply is not going to happen. Even if there were another 358 million acres suitable for growing corn, the environmental lobby would never let it happen. They have successfully blocked the disturbance of a mere 2,000 acres of Alaska for nearly two decades. They have been on the warpath to prevent the use of genetically modified seeds and the use of industrial chemicals and fertilizers for years, to say nothing of the anti-irrigation campaigns going on around the country. A four-fold increase in corn production would mean a four-fold increase in all these practices that the environmental lobby has deemed to be "unsustainable." Nancy Pelosi's rhetoric is unrealistic pre-election pandering.

This so-called Democratic energy policy is just silly; the rest of the Democrat's agenda is dangerous. On the domestic side, Democrats seem eager to follow the European model of the socialist superstate, which provides "free" everything to everyone. Never mind that this model requires up to 70 percent of total national production to sustain and is responsible for the continuing decay of the European economy.

On the judicial front, Democrats are desperate to regain the White House before another Supreme Court Justice is appointed. One more less-than-liberal justice will tilt the scale for another generation. This possibility gives Democrats nightmares.

It is the Democrats' view of foreign policy that is most troublesome. Under Democrat rule, the Kyoto Protocol would be immediately reinstated and sent to the Senate for ratification, as would be the International Criminal Court. The war on terrorism would be turned over to the U.N., and the U.N. would be turned over to corrupt bureaucrats to continue doing – or not doing – whatever they wish, accountable to no one.

Republicans must bear the responsibility for the current state of political affairs. They have had much help, of course, from the media and from a large disloyal segment of the opposition. Nevertheless, should the Democrats succeed in taking the House in 2006 and the White House in 2008, it will not be because the Democrats have a better idea; it will be because the Republicans failed to deliver on the conservative principles they were elected to implement.

Real ID ban dead Senate, House lock horns on bill

Article published May 12, 2006
Licensing plan on way
Real ID ban dead Senate, House lock horns on bill

Monitor staff


State lawmakers yesterday ended a nationally watched attempt to keep New Hampshire from participating in stricter federal drivers' licensing rules. As a result, New Hampshire will likely become a testing ground for the new program, known as Real ID, which requires states to verify drivers' birth certificates, addresses and immigration status and to enter that information into a shared database.

Congress designed the system last year to reduce illegal immigration and deter terrorists, but opponents believe it's an invasion of privacy and the first step towards a national identification card.

After a complicated series of votes and hours of debate, lawmakers rejected two versions of a bill that would have barred New Hampshire from participating in Real ID. Lawmakers have been at odds for weeks over the plan: The Senate wanted to accept a $3 million federal grant in exchange for trying out the program. The House, meanwhile, was gaining national attention for trying to pass a law against it.

Yesterday, the Senate won, but victory came at a cost: The demise of a bill that would have granted the health commissioner broad emergency powers in the event of a pandemic.

"This is a classic case of legislative chicken between the House and the Senate,"said Rep. Neal Kurk, before leading his colleagues through a parliamentary gamble aimed at getting the Senate to change its opinion of Real ID.

Kurk, a Weare Republican, has been among the most vocal opponents of Real ID. When two-thirds of the House voted in favor of bucking the program, he earned the praise of privacy advocates, those who favor limited government and a group of Christians who believe a national ID card is the Biblical "mark of the beast" and, thus, a harbinger of the Apocalypse.
Real ID has also upset the National Governor's Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, who predict it will be too costly and time-consuming for many states.

At the same time the Real ID opposition was gaining furor in the House, senators were crafting a bill to help the state prepare for a health emergency, such as a pandemic flu. The proposal would have allowed the health commission, with the governor's approval, to seize and ration drugs, close buildings and prohibit public assemblies.

When the Senate voted to send the Real ID bill to a study committee instead of condemning the program, Kurk decided to use the pandemic proposal as an insurance policy. Yesterday, Kurk persuaded the House to vote down the pandemic bill in an effort to force the Senate to negotiate over Real ID. But the Senate called his bluff and refused to budge.

"A message was sent to the Senate, and a message was sent to the people of New Hampshire that their representatives have heard them," Kurk said. "This is not an extremist position. This is where, I believe, the heart of America is, not just New Hampshire."

Once the speeches were over and the dust had settled, both bills were dead, and plenty of lawmakers were unhappy. Top Senate Republicans chastised Kurk for putting privacy concerns over public safety, and they accused him of siding with groups like the Free State Project, a movement of libertarians who are migrating to New Hampshire to lobby for small government.

"He chose the Free-Staters over the health of the citizens of New Hampshire," said Majority Leader Bob Clegg, of Hudson. "That's wrong."

Clegg stressed that, before accepting the federal money, the state's Fiscal Committee would likely examine how to preserve privacy while tightening security. New Hampshire, like other states, has until 2008 to comply with the federal guidelines, which will be issued by the Department of Homeland Security this summer.

"There is nothing that stops us from forming an ad hoc committee," Clegg said.

Senate Democrats, who also oppose Real ID, said the House was forced into an impossible situation by senators who are out of touch with their constituents. Sen. Peter Burling, a Cornish Democrat, warned that the $3 million grant would cover just a fraction of the cost of Real ID. The federal law, he said, allows the government to change the rules, and could eventually to lead to licenses with computer chips or a national database of citizens.

"New Hampshire has no defense against the onset of Real ID," Burling said. "It was nothing but Republican votes that killed our defense."

------ End of article


Monitor staff

Alabama candidate for AG disputes Holocaust, is coming to NJ

Alabama candidate for AG disputes Holocaust, is coming to NJ
Associated Press Writer

May 12, 2006, 3:56 PM EDT

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- A Democratic candidate for Alabama attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend in New Jersey to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.

Larry Darby concedes his views are radical, but he said they should help him win wide support among Alabama voters as he tries to "reawaken white racial awareness" with his campaign against Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.

The state Democratic chairman, Joe Turnham, said the party became aware of some of Darby's views only days ago and was considering what to do about his candidacy.

"Any type of hatred toward groups of people, especially for political gain, is completely unacceptable in the Alabama Democratic Party," said Turnham.

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to typhus.

Historians say about 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."

"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

Darby said he will speak Saturday near Newark, N.J., at a meeting of National Vanguard, which bills itself as an advocate for the white race. Some of his campaign materials are posted on the group's Internet site.

"It's time to stop pushing down the white man. We've been discriminated against too long," Darby said in the interview.

New Jersey's Democratic State Committee chief on Friday decried Darby's planned visit, and said in a statement that denying the Holocaust was "historical blasphemy."

"Hate and prejudice are destructive qualities that are not welcome in New Jersey and should be condemned wherever they occur," said party Chairman Joe Cryan. "Mr. Darby should turn around before crossing the Jersey stateline and then give thought to turning his abhorrent attitudes around as well."

A poll published last month indicated the Democratic race for attorney general was up for grabs. The survey showed 21 percent favored Tyson to 12 percent for Darby, but 68 percent of respondents were undecided.

Darby, founder of the Atheist Law Center and a longtime supporter of separation of church and state, said he has no money for campaign advertising and has made only a few campaign speeches.

Tyson said aside from his views on race and the Holocaust, Darby also has publicly advocated legalizing drugs and shooting all illegal immigrants.

"I am astonished as anyone has ever been that anyone is running for public office in Alabama on that platform," said Tyson. "I do not take him as a serious candidate."

Turnham said the party began an investigation last week after hearing about some of Darby's comments in a television interview. While the party supports the free-speech rights of any candidate, Turnham said some of Darby's views appear to be in "a realm of thought that is unacceptable."

"We have Holocaust survivors and families of Holocaust survivors here in Alabama, and many of them are members of the Democratic Party," said Turnham.

The winner of the Democratic primary on June 6 will face either Republican Attorney General Troy King or Mark Montiel, who is opposing King in the GOP primary.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

Roe attorney: Use abortion to 'eliminate poor'

Roe attorney: Use abortion to 'eliminate poor'
In unearthed letter urged President-elect Clinton to 'reform' country

Posted: May 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006

Ron Weddington
A letter to Bill Clinton written by the co-counsel who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade decision urged the then-president-elect to "eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country" by liberalizing abortion laws.

Ron Weddington, who with his wife Sarah Weddington represented "Jane Roe," sent the four-page letter to President Clinton's transition team before Clinton took office in January 1993.

The missive turned up in an exhibit put together by the watchdog legal group Judicial Watch, which has been researching the Clinton administration's policy on the abortion drug RU-486, notes James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web.

Weddington told the president-elect: "I don't think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population."

He said the new leader can "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country."

Weddington qualified his statement, saying, "No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.

"There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and ... well ... so Republican."

Weddington explained he was "not proposing that you send federal agents armed with Depo-Provera dart guns to the ghetto. You should use persuasion rather than coercion."

He points to President Clinton and his soon-to-be first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as the "perfect example."

"Could either of you have gone to law school and achieved anything close to what you have if you had three or four or more children before you were 20?" he asked. "No! You waited until you were established and in your 30's to have one child. That is what sensible people do."

Later, Weddington took a shot at the "religious right."

"Having convinced the poor that they can't get out of poverty when they have all those extra mouths to feed, you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work. The religious right has had 12 years to preach its message. It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent as much disease and as many poor babies as possible."
Weddington then argued that with 30 million abortions up to that point since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, America is a much better place.

"Think of all the poverty, crime and misery ... and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario," he said. "We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left."

The lawyer also delved into biblical theology.

"The biblical exhortation to 'be fruitful and multiply' was directed toward a small tribe, surrounded by enemies," he argued. "We are long past that. Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners. We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more poor babies."

In his postscript, Weddington said: "I was co-counsel in Roe v. Wade, [and] have sired zero children and one fetus, the abortion of which was recently recounted by my ex-wife in her book, "A Question of Choice" (Grosset/Putnam, 1992) I had a vasectomy in 1969 and have never had one moment of regret."

The Weddingtons divorced in 1974.

Their client in the 1973 case, Norma McCorvey, recently attempted to challenge the ruling that struck down all state laws restricting abortion, arguing changes in law and new scientific research make the prior decision "no longer just."

Commenting on a 2004 court ruling dismissing the challenge, Sarah Weddington said those who filed it "got publicity but the publicity actually has been very helpful for those of us who believe the government should not be involved."

After announcement of McCorvey's challenge, Weddington received about two dozen offers to help defend the Roe decision.