Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (30107)	11/14/2002 1:23:07 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Does anyone know anything about this? You Are a Suspect By WILLIAM SAFIRE Note: It is on Drudge tonight...Hopefully this isn't true....But maybe some of our Democrat friends can get the right info out on this.... nytimes.com ASHINGTON — If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you: Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database." To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen. This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks. Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua. A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing. This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the "data-mining" power to snoop on every public and private act of every American. Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight. He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic "stovepiping." And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans. When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person's medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president. This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The Washington Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act. Political awareness can overcome "Total Information Awareness," the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear. The Latin motto over Poindexter"s new Pentagon office reads "Scientia Est Potentia" — "knowledge is power." Exactly: the government's infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. "We're just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy," this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.

To: sandintoes who wrote (30107)	11/14/2002 1:23:18 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

Bush Reaffirms References to God in Pledge, National Motto Wednesday, November 13, 2002 WASHINGTON — President Bush signed into law on Wednesday a bill reaffirming — with a slap at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto. Bush signed the legislation without comment. It reinforces support for the words "under God" in the pledge, and for "In God we trust" as the national motto. The measure was approved unanimously in the Senate and drew just five no votes in the House. Congress rushed to act after the federal appeals court in California ruled in June that the phrase "under God," inserted into the pledge by Congress in 1954, amounted to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. The legislation faulted the court for its "erroneous rationale" and "absurd result." The new law also modifies the manner in which the Pledge of Allegiance is to be delivered by stating that, when not in uniform, men should remove any nonreligious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Previously, the standard dictated that "any headdress" be removed. Those House members voting against the bill, all Democrats, were Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Michael Honda and Pete Stark of California, Jim McDermott of Washington and Bobby Scott of Virginia. At the time, Scott called the legislation "totally gratuitous" even though he shared the majority's objections to the court's ruling. Four House Democrats — Gary Ackerman and Nydia Velazquez of New York, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Mel Watt of North Carolina — voted present.

To: sandintoes who wrote (30107)	11/14/2002 1:24:57 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Bruce Bartlett URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/ November 14, 2002 From doormats to majority As Democrats ponder a period in which they are likely to be out of power in Washington for some years, a few are looking to the Republicans for ideas on how to rejuvenate their party. For their benefit, I will explain how I think Republicans went from doormats to majority party. First, I need to explain why Republicans became doormats in the first place. From the Civil War until the Great Depression, they were the majority party. During that long period, only two Democrats achieved the presidency and during most of it Republicans controlled Congress, as well. When Democrats seized control of Congress and the White House in 1932, Republicans did not necessarily see themselves moving into semi-permanent decline. They retook the House and Senate in 1946 and had every reason to think that they were moving back to parity with the Democrats. When they got the White House as well as Congress in 1952, Republicans thought they had returned to majority status. But this proved not to be the case, as Republicans lost control of Congress after the 1954 election. It would be another 26 years before they took back either house of Congress, and 40 years before they gained control of both houses. The key reason for this long period in the wilderness is that Dwight Eisenhower fundamentally shifted Republican economic policy away from tax cuts and made balancing the budget its central plank. Gone was the tax-cutting that defined the Republican Party in the 1920s. Eisenhower squashed every congressional effort to cut taxes, saying that balancing the budget had to come first. As a consequence, the high World War II tax rates were kept in place all through the Eisenhower years. It was not until Democrat John F. Kennedy came along that Americans finally got tax relief. Unfortunately, the Democrats quickly threw away their advantage on the tax issue. But Republicans were now deeply wedded to Eisenhower-style "fiscal responsibility" and did not reclaim it as their own. Indeed, most Republicans voted against the Kennedy tax cut. Voters continued to give the White House to Republican presidents most of the time, in order to keep a check on Democratic excesses. But they were unwilling to give Republicans anything close to a majority in either the House or Senate. Voters did not see any reason to do so because Republicans had no positive agenda -- there was nothing, really, that they needed a majority in Congress to accomplish. Since their only job was clean up Democrat messes and keep their excesses in check, all Republicans needed was the presidency. In 1976, however, Republicans were forced to rethink their approach. Not only did they lose the White House, but their numbers in Congress got so low that they were in danger of extinction. In the 95th Congress, there were just 143 Republicans in the House and 38 in the Senate. At this point, Jack Kemp revived tax-cutting as Republican economic policy. But he did so against heavy resistance from many old-line Republicans, who opposed tax cuts unless government spending was cut equally. After all, it would be fiscally irresponsible to do otherwise. However, most Republicans figured that they had nothing to lose by supporting tax cuts without spending cuts. In 1977, it was the only life raft around. By 1978, with the passage of Proposition 13 in California, it was clear that tax cuts were very popular politically. This led to big Republican gains in Congress that year. With Ronald Reagan running on a tax cut in 1980, he was able to give Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in a generation. Unfortunately, George H.W. Bush was a throwback to the Eisenhower era, who foolishly thought that raising taxes was the responsible thing to do. He was rightly punished by voters as a consequence. Instead, they supported Democrat Bill Clinton, who promised a middle-class tax cut. Fortunately for Republicans, Clinton immediately abandoned his tax cut and instead pushed a tax increase. This led to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 on tax cuts, which they delivered in 1997. George W. Bush wisely ran on a tax cut in 2000 and got it enacted the following year. Having kept their promise on the key issue of tax-cutting, voters rewarded Republicans in this year's elections. Now Democrats are complaining that Republicans are not acting like they used to. Bill Moyers whines that the "reasonable" Republicans of the Eisenhower era are now gone. Clinton economist Brad Delong laments that Republicans no longer clean up Democrat excesses, and cut taxes instead of running up budget surpluses for Democrats to later spend. Democrats now have become Eisenhower Republicans -- opposing tax cuts and demanding fiscal responsibility. Dubbed "Rubinomics" by some, after Clinton Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, I hope it's as successful for them as it was for Republicans. ©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

To: sandintoes who wrote (30107)	11/14/2002 1:27:40 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

China's Hu Nears Leadership Role 41 minutes ago URL:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=516&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20021114/ap_on_re_as/china_politics By JOE McDONALD, Associated Press Writer Vice President Hu Jintao took another step toward becoming China's next leader Thursday as the government announced he was the only top politician re-elected to the Communist Party's Central Committee — the most concrete sign yet of his ascent. As China's National Party Congress came to an end, party delegates also moved to approve President Jiang Zemin (news - web sites)'s "Three Represents" theory, adding capitalist-style ideology to their party charter as they work to keep pace with economic reforms and the introduction of the market economy. The official Xinhua News Agency said Jiang was not on the list of those re-elected, indicating his expected retirement from a formal party role. Five of his colleagues also were not re-elected, Xinhua said in what appears to be the first orderly transfer of power since the communists took China in 1949. Xinhua specifically identified Hu as "the only member" of the previous party congress' Standing Committee to be re-elected. The Standing Committee of the party's Politburo is the inner circle of party leadership — and, by extension, the leadership of China. "Each time at the national congress, we produce a tremendous new group of leaders. This shows that the Communist Party of China still retains enormous potential," said Wang Xiaofeng, a delegate and the governor of Hainan, an island province off the southern coast. The leaders are expected to be formally introduced Friday at the Great Hall of the People, the main gathering place of China's Communists. Hu is expected to become general secretary, though the details of exactly when he will be elected by his peers remained unclear. Jiang, 76, general secretary of the Communist Party since he replaced Zhao Ziyang in a 1989 purge after the Tiananmen Square democracy protests, will remain president until March. But the party position is the wellspring of his power, and his departure from it makes his retirement as president certain. Jiang, closing the weeklong meeting, proclaimed it "a congress of unity, a congress of victory and a congress of progress." "All this," he said, "will immensely encourage the whole party and Chinese people of all ethnic groups to keep pace with the times, blaze new trails in a pioneering spirit and continue confidently to propel the great cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics forward." The moves, which launch a younger generation of leaders to shepherd China through a period of dizzying economic change, come at the end of the congress, the once-in-five-years meeting of the party that has ruled China since its insurgents took the mainland in 1949. Hu, 59, was designated as Jiang's heir apparent by the late senior leader Deng Xiaoping. His ascent has been widely expected, though little is known about him. He has taken on a higher profile in recent months and traveled to the United States in the spring, a signal that he was being readied. Delegates to the party's 16th National Congress also amended its constitution to formally endorse Jiang's invitation for entrepreneurs to join — an effort to keep the party in control of a fast-changing China. It was a move that would have been unthinkable to many of Mao Zedong's old-guard communists, who once vigorously persecuted and imprisoned capitalists. Jiang's principle is known by the ungainly title of the "Three Represents," language aimed at showing that the party is concerned about all levels of society. But it is also code for the once-unthinkable idea of allowing capitalist entrepreneurs to join a party whose very identity is based on class struggle — the overthrow of the capitalist system. It has the added benefit of co-opting business leaders in China and claiming their power as the party's own. "It will do much to advance the great new undertaking of party-building," Jiang said. The resolution lauded the "Three Represents" theory as an important step to bring about an "advanced socialist culture" in China. "It can help mobilize the whole party to seize tightly the first two decades of the 21st century, which are a period of important strategic opportunities, focus on reform, opening up and the socialist modernization drive," it said. The resolution, distributed after the closing ceremony, called implementation of the theory "the foundation for building our party, the cornerstone for its governance and the source of its strength." In a nod to the party's desire to cast itself as progressive, it also said the theory would help China "keep pace with the times." China's rulers say they want to convey a sense of calm and thoughtfulness at the top so money from abroad continues to pouring in, raising living standards and keeping people happy — or at least unwilling to oppose party rule. While Jiang is said to be preparing to give up his formal posts, he is also believed to have shepherded proteges onto the party's next ruling body and into other high posts in order to retain influence over a new government. Though the list of Central Committee members was not immediately available, it will hold clues as to which of China's senior leaders have come out ahead and which are being shown the door.