Evangelical leader says he bought meth
By CATHERINE TSAI
November 3, 2006

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – The Rev. Ted Haggard admitted Friday he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a male prostitute. But the influential Christian evangelist insisted he threw the drugs away and never had sex with the man.

Haggard, who as president of the National Association of Evangelicals wielded influence on Capitol Hill and condemned both gay marriage and homosexuality, resigned on Thursday after a Denver man named Mike Jones claimed that he had many drug-fueled trysts with Haggard.

On Friday, Haggard said that he received a massage from Jones after being referred to him by a Denver hotel, and that he bought meth for himself from the man.

But Haggard said he never had sex with Jones. And as for the drugs, “I was tempted, but I never used it,” the 50-year-old Haggard told reporters from his vehicle while leaving his home with his wife and three of his five children.

Jones, 49, denied selling meth to Haggard. “Never,” he told MSNBC. Haggard “met someone else that I had hooked him up with to buy it.”

Jones also scoffed at the idea that a hotel would have sent Haggard to him.

“No concierge in Denver would have referred me,” he said. He said he had advertised himself as an escort only in gay publications or on gay Web sites.

Jones did not immediately return calls from The Associated Press on Friday.

In addition to resigning his post at the NAE, which claims 30 million members, Haggard stepped aside as leader of his 14,000-member New Life Church pending a church investigation. In a TV interview this week, he said: “Never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I’m steady with my wife, I’m faithful to my wife.”

In Denver, where Jones said his encounters with Haggard took place, police Detective Virginia Quinones said she was checking into whether the alleged drug deal was under investigation.

Jones claims Haggard paid him for sex nearly every month for three years until August. He said Haggard identified himself as “Art.” Jones said that he learned who Haggard really was when he saw the evangelical leader on television.

Jones said he went public with the allegations because Haggard has supported a measure on Tuesday’s ballot that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. Jones said he was also angry that Haggard in public condemned gay sex.

Haggard, who had been president since 2003 of the NAE, has participated in conservative Christian leaders’ conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied members of Congress last year on U.S. Supreme Court nominees.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said Friday that Haggard had visited the White House once or twice and participated in some of the conference calls. He declined to comment further, calling the matter a personal issue for Haggard.

Corwin Smidt, a political scientist at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich., and director of the Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics there, said that Haggard’s role with the association gave him some political clout, but that the group’s focus is more on religion than political activism.

“It isn’t necessarily that all evangelicals are paying close attention to what he’s saying and doing, but he is an important leader,” Smidt said.

James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, an influential conservative Christian ministry based in Colorado Springs, said he was “heartsick” over the allegations. He described Haggard as his close friend and colleague.

Aaron Stern, another pastor at New Life, told Associated Press Television News on Friday that Haggard is a man of integrity and that church members don’t know whether to believe the allegations.

Stern said he has been telling church members seeking his advice: “People do things we don’t expect them to do, but in the midst of all of that our God is faithful, our God is strong.”

Jones took a lie-detector test Friday, and his answers to questions about whether he had sexual contact with Haggard “indicated deception,” said John Kresnick, who administered the test free at the request of a Denver radio station.

Jones told reporters afterward: “I am confused why I failed that, other than the fact that I’m totally exhausted.”

---

US Citizens to be Required "Clearance" to Leave USA
October 26, 2006

Forget no-fly lists. If Uncle Sam gets its way, beginning on Jan. 14, 2007, we’ll all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us permission to leave-or re-enter-the United States.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that all airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the United States.

It doesn’t matter if you have a U.S. Passport – a “travel document” that now, absent a court order to the contrary, gives you a virtually unqualified right to enter or leave the United States, any time you want. When the DHS system comes into effect next January, if the agency says “no” to a clearance request, or doesn’t answer the request at all, you won’t be permitted to enter-or leave-the United States.

Consider what might happen if you’re a U.S. passport holder on assignment in a country like Saudi Arabia. Your visa is about to expire, so you board your flight back to the United States. But wait! You can’t get on, because you don’t have permission from the HSA. Saudi immigration officials are on hand to escort you to a squalid detention center, where you and others who are now effectively “stateless persons” are detained, potentially indefinitely, until their immigration status is sorted out.

Why might the HSA deny you permission to leave-or enter-the United States? No one knows, because the entire clearance procedure would be an administrative determination made secretly, with no right of appeal. Naturally, the decision would be made without a warrant, without probable cause and without even any particular degree of suspicion. Basically, if the HSA decides it doesn’t like you, you’re a prisoner – either outside, or inside, the United States, whether or not you hold a U.S. passport.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutional right to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that the right to travel is “a virtually unconditional personal right.” The United States has also signed treaties guaranteeing “freedom of travel.” So if these regulations do go into effect, you can expect a lengthy court battle, both nationally and internationally.

Think this can’t happen? Think again. It’s ALREADY happening. Earlier this year, HSA forbade airlines from transporting an 18-year-old a native-born U.S. citizen, back to the United States. The prohibition lasted nearly six months until it was finally lifted a few weeks ago. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are two countries in recent history that didn’t allow their citizens to travel abroad without permission. If these regulations go into effect, you can add the United States to this list.

For more information on this proposed regulation, see http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf.

---

Bush bigger threat than Kim Jong-il
by Julian Glover
November 4, 2006

AMERICA is seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published yesterday.

The survey shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than North Korean leader Kim Jong-il or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by Mr Bush as part of an “axis of evil” but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.

The survey was carried out by The Guardian in Britain and newspapers in Israel ( Haaretz), Canada ( La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico ( Reforma), using professional pollsters in each country.

In Britain, 69 per cent of those questioned said they believed US policy has made the world less safe since 2001. Only 7 per cent thought action in Iraq and Afghanistan had improved global security.

The finding was mirrored in Canada and Mexico, with 62 per cent of Canadians and 57 per cent of Mexicans saying the world had become more dangerous because of US policy. In Israel, only one in four said that Mr Bush had made the world safer. Voters in three of the four countries overwhelmingly rejected the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59 per cent to 34 per cent against.

---