George W. Bush and John F. Kerry Square Off

Bonesman vs. Bonesman

(Spring 2004)

I have delayed the writing of this article for more than three weeks. Recognizing the importance of this information and being aware that it will likely ruffle a few feathers, I spent extra time researching and prayerfully contemplating what God would have me to say. What follows may be controversial, but it is true and reveals the condition of America and its leaders.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

During a visit to England a couple years ago I learned of some disturbing details concerning President George W. Bush. I reluctantly shared some of those findings in our Fall 2002 newsletter. Here are a few excerpts to refresh your memory:

While in England…a Christian researcher gave me a copy of an article that had appeared in London’s Daily Telegraph newspaper on April 25th, 2001. The article was entitled “Bizarre Secrets of Bush Club Exposed.” Although I had been aware of the Bush family’s historic involvement in the occult “Skull and Bones” secret society at Yale University, I wanted to believe that George W. had become a born again Christian around the age of 40, as he professed. If he has truly accepted Jesus Christ as Savior I am prepared to forgive any of his past “indiscretions.”
However, this article gave me new reason to question the authenticity of Bush’s conversion. It reveals that George W. held a special private dinner for his year of “Bonesmen,” as they are called, shortly after he entered the White House. It is not encouraging to know that one of the first things our President did after being elected was to meet with the powerful members of a secret club. We must understand that this is not just any club!

As a result of my British experience, I became more curious about “The Order.” Unfortunately, my schedule at the time didn’t permit me to delve as deeply into the subject as I would have liked. But to my surprise, CBS aired a 60 Minutes story on Skull and Bones on October 5th, 2003. Although it took a light-hearted “tongue in cheek” approach, it was quite well done and provided the following additional facts.

According to 60 Minutes, The Skull and Bones secret society was founded in 1832, (not in 1856 as the Daily Telegraph initially reported). It was based on secret student societies that were common in Germany at the time. The Order’s meetings have historically taken place in a windowless, sepulchral building known as “The Tomb” located on the campus of Yale. Members are forbidden to reveal what goes on inside this “Inner Sanctum.” Only 15 Yale seniors are brought into The Order each year, meaning there are only around 800 living members of S & B at any given time.

Much of the material for the 60 Minutes segment came from Alexandra Robbins, a Yale graduate who wrote a book on S & B called Secrets of the Tomb. In the course of her research, she interviewed about 100 Bonesmen. But Robbins was quick to volunteer that twice that number hung up on her, threatened her, or harassed her.

The cast of the initiation ritual seemed particularly disturbing to her – like something out of “Harry Potter meets Dracula,” she said. There is an obsession with death and its trappings throughout S & B rituals, including talk about the devil and the pope. As part of the initiation, neophytes also recount their entire sexual histories to other initiates. This activity lasts about 1 to 3 hours. Once initiated, you become a patriarch (a member for life). According to Robbins, the purpose of Skull and Bones is “to get as many members as possible into positions of power.”

Not only are George W. Bush and his father Bonesmen, but so was his grandfather, Prescott Bush. Prescott in fact had quite a reputation within the society. He and a band of Bonesmen robbed the grave of Geronimo, the legendary Apache Indian chief, stealing his skull and personal relics. These are still said to be in the possession of The Order.

At the time of the 60 Minutes report, George W. had five fellow Bonesmen in key positions in his administration, including William Donaldson, Head of the Securities & Exchange Commission. The report failed to name the other four administration members but did point out that presidential candidate John Kerry is also a Bonesman – a class of 1966 initiate. That’s right, both of America’s top contenders for the White House are Bonesmen!

If you are into statistics and probabilities, consider this: Only one of every 80,000 American adult males of presidential age are members of Skull and Bones. Therefore, the odds of both presidential candidates being Bonesmen by mere coincidence is one in several billion. In other words, the possibility isn’t even worthy of serious consideration. At the very least, it is fair to say that both men have very powerful figures behind them who have helped them get to where they are.

Other Bonesmen, along with US Presidents, include Cabinet officers, spies, Supreme Court Justices, statesmen and top leaders of industry. As 60 Minutes put it, “A social and political network like no other!” The list of past and present S & B members include US President William H. Taft; Henry Luce, Founder of Time Magazine; W.A. Harriman, famous diplomat and confidant of US presidents; and William F. Buckley, Jr., columnist/publisher; to name just a few.

At one point during the interview Alexandra Robbins contended, “I don’t believe that people who represent our country, especially the President of the United States, should be allowed to have an allegiance to a secret organization.” Her statement echoed the views of great American leaders from the past like Daniel Webster and Ulysses S. Grant. The statesman Webster once wrote, “In my opinion, the imposition of such obligation as Freemasonry requires should be prohibited by law.”i (It should be understood that much of the symbolism and ritual of S & B has been borrowed from Freemasonry, also known as the Masonic Lodge or Masonic Order. Chapters 5 and 6 of my book En Route to Global Occupation deal extensively with this subject.) President Ulysses S. Grant warned, “All secret oath-bound political parties are dangerous to any nation…”ii Other US presidents who openly condemned Freemasonry and secret societies in general include James Madison, John Quincy Adams, and Millard Fillmore. Madison and Fillmore had previously been Masons and were therefore speaking from experience.iii

Another researcher of Skull and Bones who was interviewed by 60 Minutes was Ron Rosenbaum, an author and columnist for the New York Observer and a Yale classmate of George W. Bush. When asked about comparisons between S & B and the Mafia, he sarcastically responded, “I think Skull & Bones has had slightly more success than the Mafia, in the sense that the leaders in the 5 families are all doing 100 years in jail, and the leaders of the Skull & Bones families are doing 4 and 8 years in the White House.”

Commenting on Bush and Kerry as Bonesmen, Rosenbaum reflected, “It is fascinating isn’t it; I mean, again, all people would say these societies don’t matter, or the Eastern Establishment is in decline, and you could not find two more quintessential, Eastern Establishment, privileged guys.”

Getting to Know John Kerry

While a significant number of people have known about the Bush family’s involvement in secret societies, the public has known relatively little about John Kerry’s background and political connections until recently. The fact is, Kerry is very well connected to old money/United Nations interests. For example, his current wife Teresa Heinz Kerry is an heir of the super wealthy Heinz (ketchup) family.

Like some of the past members of his wife’s family, John Kerry is a prominent member of the pro-UN Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR agenda which includes an increased role for the UN in the Middle East, insists on Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, Judea, Samaria and a large portion of Jerusalem. This move would make it all but impossible for Israel to defend herself.

Interestingly, while Kerry is now a professing Roman Catholic, his roots on his father’s side are Jewish.iv More specifically, his father is 100% Jewish and was the son of prominent Jewish business people in Prague (Czech Republic).v For whatever reason, Kerry has chosen not to reveal this important part of his heritage during the campaign.

Would it be fair to say that John Kerry is quite possibly the most complex presidential candidate in US history? Think about it: a pro-UN Catholic

Jew with Eastern European roots, who happens to belong to the CFR and the Skull & Bones, and who takes a hard line approach against Israel’s Jews while being soft on Palestinian terrorists. It begs the question, “Who is John Kerry?”

The Kerry enigma continues when it comes to domestic issues. First elected as a senator from Massachusetts in 1984 he has failed to sponsor a single successful piece of healthcare legislation during his 19 years in Congress. He hasn't accomplished much of anything else either because environmental issues have commanded most of his energy and passion. U. S. News & World Report states, “Environmental advocacy is one of the few consistent themes in Kerry’s legislative career…Two of the three substantive bills that have passed with Kerry’s sponsorship…dealt with the environment: One protected marine mammals from commercial fishing nets, and the other ensured funding for marine research.”vi

Kerry may indeed be classified as a “hyper-environmentalist.” He strongly opposed drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, which could have made the US less dependent on foreign oil. He has also been a regular guest at international conferences on global warming. In fact, his relationship with Teresa began at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.vii That event was widely viewed as a gathering of new age earth worshipers; it was here that Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev were dubbed leaders of the global environmental movement.

When it comes to family issues Kerry consistently votes to the left of most Senate democrats.

He voted against the ban on “partial-birth” abortions, for instance, and was one of 15 senators to oppose the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman and allows states to disregard marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples by other states.viii

Kerry holds “a perfect liberal score” in National Journal’s 2003 rating.ix In my opinion, if he were to serve two terms in the White House, by the end of his presidency homosexuals could have civil union or full marriage status in all 50 states.

Is George Bush Any Better?

While Kerry is openly supporting civil unions for homosexual couples, President Bush has been a staunch defender of family values…right? In truth, he has wavered repeatedly in this area, trying to appear pro-family (which he probably is) while simultaneously attempting to secure the homosexual vote.

According to an article in Agape Press entitled “Christian Leaders Disturbed by Bush’s Mixed Messages on Same-Sex Marriage,” our president has been less than consistent in his stance. The article states:

A disturbing report reveals that shortly after endorsing Marriage Protection Week, President Bush wrote a letter of praise to a homosexual church that performs thousands of same-sex “weddings” every year.

According to World Net Daily, the letter from President Bush was sent to the founding congregation of the Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles on the occasion of its 35th anniversary. The report quotes the president’s letter as saying “By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing God’s love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people’s hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives.” The letter goes on to say, “this milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God’s faithfulness to your congregation.”

Meanwhile, the pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church of Los Angeles, Rev. Neil Thomas, wonders how Bush can denounce the right of homosexuals to marry in their churches and suggest they are incapable of forming healthy marriages on the one hand, while on the other hand he rejoices with MCC in “God’s faithfulness” to a homosexual congregation that blesses such unions.

American Family Association spokesman Ed Vitagliano wonders the same thing. He told World Net Daily he is disappointed by Bush’s actions, calling it “politics as usual.” He said it is an example of a politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth, trying to appease two groups at the same time when those groups are after entirely different objectives and uphold completely different worldviews.x

Another lesser known influence in Bush’s wavering position on homosexual issues might be the fact that Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. In other words, it all hits close to home!

President Bush has sent conflicting messages on other issues as well. As we have already mentioned in previous issues, George W. has accomplished a feat in education that Bill Clinton could not – by getting the United States to rejoin UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization). UNESCO is arguably the most powerful agency of the United Nations. Along with generating the organization’s propaganda, it oversees the implementation of its education agenda worldwide. Getting the US to rejoin UNESCO had been the UN’s number one goal ever since Ronald Reagan pulled us out of that agency in the 1980s. The agency was deemed a threat to American interests and a subversive influence to our education system.

Congress had quickly squelched the Clinton Administration’s efforts when it floated a “trial balloon” on this same issue. But hardly anyone lifted a finger when the Bush Administration announced its intentions. Conservatives had either become too trusting of Bush or had completely fallen asleep. Whatever the case, it is now a done deal. (We will be sharing more on UNESCO and what it means for American education in a future issue.)

In the area of religion, the Bush’s have shown very little discernment. A few months ago, my wife and I were appalled as we watched Laura Bush tell Katie Couric on The Today Show that the Harry Potter books are her newest favorite children’s series. She went out of her way to give an unmistakably clear endorsement of Harry Potter. Former occultists have referred to these books as the single most effective way of introducing children to witchcraft and occult spirituality. Had Hillary Clinton endorsed the Potter series while in the White House, there would have been immediate public outrage among conservative Christians.

In addition, if you will recall, President Bush entered an Islamic Mosque (somewhere along the East Coast) only a few days after 9/11 and kneeled to the ground, touching his face to the floor of this “holy” place. I would not have believed it were it not for the fact that I saw it with my own eyes during a news telecast.

On another occasion, Bush declared Allah and the Christian God to be the "same god." When a reporter asked the President if he believes "Muslims worship the same Almighty" as Christians do, Bush responded, "I do say that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person. And I believe we worship the same god."xi George and Laura showed their lack of discernment again during a visit to Japan when they became the first White House occupants to pay homage to a Shinto shrine. Japanese Christians were deeply offended by these actions. As Christian author Chuck Crismier stated, "When the first of the Ten Commandments fall, the rest fall like dominoes."xii

Then there is the matter of meddling with Israel’s internal affairs by trying to carve up the tiny nation into several smaller indefensible districts. Bush's "Roadmap to Peace," if he follows Colin Powell’s advice, will have non-Israeli military forces (possibly UN troops) policing Israel's borders and eventually the nation as a whole.

Under the Bush Administration we have also witnessed the fastest expansion of our federal deficit in US history, albeit some of this deficit spending was justified due to the fallout from 9/11. And what about the greatest restructuring of US government ever under Homeland Security? This powerful, potentially invasive agency, if in the wrong hands, could surrender US sovereignty to the United Nations. Whether it is extreme naivety or simply playing politics, it is disconcerting to see our president compromising on so many critical issues.

Positions on Iraq

No issue is currently of greater concern to the American public than Iraq. Therefore, the position of each candidate on this explosive subject will weigh heavily in this fall's election. Kerry, while voting against the first war with Iraq in 1991, did vote in favor of this latest war. So any attempt to distance himself from the current situation – now that things are more volatile – is illegitimate. Either candidate, it appears, would have taken us into Iraq, although perhaps on different timetables.

Now that we are there, polls show that Americans are deeply divided on how to deal with the situation, with approximately one half strongly supporting President Bush’s efforts to continue forward, and the other half wanting to bring our troops home immediately. To help us decide which view is best, let’s take a look at the Administration’s record on Iraq and its “War on Terror.”

To the credit of the President and his top advisors, there have been no acts of terrorism committed on American soil since 9/11. This in itself could almost be considered a miracle, given the large number of militant Muslims who would like to harm America. Such protection did not come by accident and has taken a lot of hard work on the part of many professionals in our nation’s security and law enforcement agencies.

By the grace of God and with heightened vigilance among our military people, most acts of terror have been limited to parts of the Middle East, especially Iraq. Islamic militants from numerous Arab countries have been pouring into Iraq to help rebels fight the American coalition. While this has made matters more difficult for our soldiers it has, on the other hand, kept the top terrorist networks preoccupied with Iraq, allowing the US to fight terrorists in that country rather than here at home, at least for the time being.

US forces have also succeeded in capturing Saddam Hussein and most of his top commanding officers – no small task! And Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi has decided to “come clean” and withdraw his support of terrorism for fear that he might be next. The Bush Administration has reported some progress in Sudan as well, where nearly 2 million Sudanese Christians have been executed by a ruthless Islamic regime during the last two decades. Persecution of Christians is still occurring, but the government in Khartoum has finally agreed to scale back its genocide. We’ll see what happens.

In Iraq itself, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in early April, 61% of Iraqis say that ousting Saddam was worth the war, and 53% say that their country would be less safe if the US left. In the same poll, however, when asked, “Should the US leave Iraq immediately?” 57% of Iraqis said “yes.”xiii The interpretation: Most Iraqis are relieved they no longer have to fear Saddam’s death squads and torture chambers, and they are glad to have electricity and running water, but their overall hatred for America still runs deep and could flare up in a moment given the right circumstances – as the recent violence in Fallujah has demonstrated.

While President Bush has had some notable success in his campaign against terror, he has experienced some major setbacks as well. They have come on several fronts:

a)The Administration vastly underestimated the percentage of Iraqis who would oppose the US-led effort.

b)The cost of the war so far ($150 billion) is already more than twice the Administration’s original estimate, and the war is nowhere close to being over.

c)No weapons of mass destruction have been found. This has been a huge embarrassment to the President and has made it much more difficult to keep the American public and foreign allies behind his effort.

The President’s problems have been compounded by misinformation propagated in the “international community.” Some foreign news sources have irresponsibly reported that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. The fact is France, Russia, and even the United Nations at one point admitted that Iraq possessed WMDs. It is a well-established fact that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds during the late 1980s.

The real question therefore should be, “Did he destroy his remaining stockpile of WMDs since that time?” Given Saddam’s record, this is highly unlikely. What is more plausible is that he began moving them out of Iraq as soon as he realized Bush was serious. In fact, our sources in Jerusalem reported that Israeli intelligence noticed large convoys of trucks moving between Iraq and Syria as early as August and September of 2002. There is little doubt that Syria now holds much of Saddam’s stash of chemical and biological weapons. (Does this mean Syria is next?)

President Bush’s single biggest mistake was that he waited too long to go into Iraq after announcing his intentions. He succumbed to Colin Powell’s pressure to try to “get the UN on board first.” As one should have expected, the UN used every tactic imaginable to delay US action, thereby giving Saddam ample time to move his WMDs.

As far as Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is concerned, we may never know the full truth on this matter. Whatever the case may be, President Bush should have never given nuclear weapons as a major reason for going to war. It was not necessary. The fact that Saddam had tortured or killed several hundred thousand innocent Iraqis – including thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons – would have been reason enough, politically speaking.

I personally believe this was not the right time to take on Iraq. If anything, the US should have gone into Sudan to come to the aid of persecuted Christians who had been begging for help. Few would have opposed such an effort considering the well-documented human rights violations that had occurred. The war would have been short, inexpensive, and would have sent a clear message to other terror-sponsoring nations. It would have been the right thing to do, given the fact that more people were being persecuted in Sudan than in Iraq, and that most of those being tortured and terrorized in Sudan were Christians.

However, since Bush did not choose to take this path, once he made the decision to invade Iraq, he should have moved swiftly without trying to get UN approval. Had he done so, WMDs would likely have been found and Europeans would have had no case against the US. But hindsight is 20/20 as the saying goes.

The question now is, what should the US do under the present circumstances? There is no easy solution. If the Coalition pulls out, Iraq will collapse into anarchy or civil war. The situation would be far worse than before the US invasion. But if we stay, more and more of our troops will be brought home in body bags.

Now that President Bush has committed us to this war I believe there is no choice but to stay the course. We must provide our soldiers with whatever they need to do the job, realizing that some of their lives will be sacrificed. As long as the war keeps enemies of America preoccupied so that they cannot unleash their terror on civilian targets here at home, the war will be viewed as being justified politically. (Spiritually, that’s a whole other matter!)

Whatever the results, it is critical that the Coalition limit UN involvement on key matters of governance. Any role the UN plays should be secondary, such as providing food and medical relief. It would be a tragedy if American, British, and other coalition countries pay for this war with their blood and taxes only to turn Iraq over to the United Nations in the end. Yet, this could very well happen.

If John Kerry were elected, many of our troops would be coming home soon, but only because UN forces would be replacing them. Kerry is committed to the UN and the cause of global government. Handing over control of Iraq would give the UN a foothold in the Middle East, along with giving it the opportunity to appear as a savior, called in to “fix the problem and bring peace.”

If George Bush stays in the White House, the results unfortunately could be much the same. If he eventually yields to pressure from Colin Powell, Tony Blair, European interests and an impatient US public, he too might bring in the UN to bail himself out of a seemingly impossible situation. However, under Kerry this process would move more quickly than under Bush who might resist UN control for a time. Regardless of who is our next president, there is a high probability that when everything is said and done, the UN will be calling the shots in Iraq. (America would likely maintain a military presence and continue to foot most of the bill, much like it did after WWII in Germany.)

Who Will It Be?

So, if John Kerry and George Bush are both Bonesmen, and if both are likely to turn Iraq over to the United Nations, who would be the best choice for president, or does it even matter? I have been asked this question repeatedly over the last few months and have put much time into thinking and praying about the upcoming election. Here are my thoughts.

We know that there is currently no viable third party alternative. Ralph Nader, although strong on consumer issues, is more radical on the environment than Kerry, and if elected, would involve Uncle Sam even more in every facet of our lives through ever increasing government regulations. Other lesser-known candidates who have represented the Libertarian and US Taxpayers parties, for example, do not have the funding to generate the visibility necessary for a serious run at the White House. While some of these candidates, like Howard Phillips, have given it their best shot in past elections, they have rarely gotten more than one percent of the general vote.

If we vote for John Kerry we might as well put Ted Kennedy in the White House, since their voting records and stand on social issues is about the same. If elected, Kerry would undoubtedly pave the way for greater immorality in America. Whether on the issue of abortion or civil unions, he would nearly always side with the most liberal, anti-Christian position.

George W., on the other hand, has wavered on many fronts and has a family history of loyalty to the new world order. Is he:

a)Well-intentioned, but naïve?
b)Well-intentioned, but politically astute – trying to outmaneuver his opponents?
c)Or, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, subtly taking us in the wrong direction?

In the end only God can know his heart and judge his motives with certainty.

I have tried to understand some of President Bush’s inconsistent actions and believe that he may for the most part be well-intentioned, but is trying to be all things to all people rather than simply doing what is right. Yet the fact is, to have any chance of staying in power in America today, you have to cater to a wide range of ideologies and religious views. This, in itself, is an indictment against our nation!

A Call to Repentance

One of the core issues that must be addressed by both candidates as well as the American people is, “Does America have the right to police the world?” “Has God really given us a moral mandate to lead the world and to force our ways on others?” If so, we had better be sure we are living up to His standard. How can we justify our actions overseas and expect God’s blessings on our endeavors, if we have turned our back on Him as a nation?

Last month’s revelations about the humiliating sexually-oriented abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib is unfortunately a reflection of America’s character. A nation with a high level of immorality will have a high number of immoral soldiers who commit indecent acts. Every American who learned of what happened to those prisoners – including at least one act of forced sodomy – should have been deeply grieved. One Iraqi prisoner reportedly even died of cardiac arrest as a result of his traumatic experience. What a tragic way to win over the Iraqi people!

With thousands of homosexual couples lining up in our cities, with America’s pornography sweeping the globe, and with mobs of depraved citizens protesting in our streets to keep “their right” to kill unborn babies, do we truly have a moral advantage over our adversaries? If we expect God’s blessing, wouldn’t it seem, from God’s standpoint, that we should get our own house in order before taking on enemies in distant lands?

The fact is, God has been incredibly merciful to America. His undeserved patience may be due in part to a significant remnant of Christians who have been interceding on behalf of our country – praying that God would give us a little more time to repent and turn to Him. But how much longer will a righteous and just God wait before judging America?

I believe we are in a temporary lull before a big storm. All of us should use this time to examine our lives and humbly bring ourselves into line with God’s will. We must begin with wholehearted repentance and complete surrender to God, deciding to follow Jesus regardless of the cost!

As we seek His face, let us pray for the safety of our Christian soldiers – as God is capable of supernaturally protecting His own. Let’s also pray for the salvation of unsaved troops and the Iraqi people who are caught in the middle of this war. And, let us not forget to pray for our president.

The way to support a president who professes Christ is to back him with prayer, but to hold him accountable nonetheless when his actions are contrary to God’s Word. In spite of his weaknesses or possibly because of them, we must specifically ask God to grant President Bush and his closest advisors wisdom and courage to do what is right against great odds.

Apart from the Lord there is no way out of the current situation. As a nation, we must put our complete faith and trust in Him and live in steadfast obedience to His Word!

“But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice….For thou, Lord, wilt bless the righteous; with favor wilt thou compass [surround them] as with a shield.”
— Psalm 5:11a & 12

Endnotes:
1 W. J. McCormick, Christ, the Christian, and Freemasonry (Belfast: Great Joy Publications, 1984), 112.
2 Ibid.
3 Dr. Alva J. McClain, “Freemasonry and Christianity,” The Sword of the Lord (5 December 1975): 9. Dr. McClain was the long-time president of Grace Brethren Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. This article was a reprint of an earlier lecture delivered by McClain.
4 W. B. Howard and Barry Chamish, “John Kerry Exposé,” Despatch Magazine (March 2004): 39, printed in Burpengary. Q., Australia.
5 Ibid.
6 Dan Gilgoff, “Resisting Labels,” U.S. News & World Report (16 February 2004): 22.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Fred Jackson, Jenni Parker, and Allie Martin, “Christian Leaders Disturbed by Bush’s Mixed Messages On Same-Sex Marriage,” Agape Press (12 November 2003)
11 Charles Crismier III, “Bush Defends Islam,” Viewpoint (Spring 2004): 8.
12 Ibid.
13 CNN Headline News (28 April 2004), quoting results of a Gallup Poll conducted in early April.