SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (73095)3/17/2005 3:33:18 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
woos



To: michael97123 who wrote (73095)3/17/2005 4:27:56 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
'cuz Scott knows I have his back. BTW, you are a disgrace to Michaels. Guess that is why you are 97123, instead of..

Michael 2, Wharf Rat
---------------------------------------------

Everything you need to know about what a Neo-Conservative is ...and how they will DESTROY America for Republicans and Democrats alike.
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a Neo-Conservative organization that almost nobody in America has heard of.

This is a major problem considering, their own documents reveal, they intend to use OUR military to create a "Unipolar World" that they will control.

Even more alarming, members of this Neo-Conservative group hold some of the most powerful positions in the American government. ...and yet most who have voted for them don't even know the core Neo-Conservative philosophies. Most have been fooled into thinking they've voted "Republican."

*** Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group.

The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.

Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and some of its aims.


PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report outlines plans (and ideologies) that have been in the making for decades. In "Rebuilding America's Defenses,” PNAC outlines what is required of America to bring about the global empire they seek to create and control.



Most ominously, this PNAC document describes four "Core Missions" for the American military, one of which is for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous wars."



To be Clear, PNAC is NOT suggesting that America should be "prepared" to fight these wars. What they are saying is, we MUST fight these wars by whatever means necessary. They're not talking about going to war against those who have attacked or clearly plan to attack us. ...they are talking about demonstrating American Military dominance for all the world to see.



In order to gain additional strategic leverage the report speaks of a need to "Secure and Expand the zones of "democratic peace" in the middle east. Maybe that is why Saddam was tied to 911 (wrong) then tied to the Anthrax attacks (wrong) then tied to Al Qaeda (no) then posed a "Grave and Dangerous Threat" (NO, and just months before 911, Powell and Rice both said he was NOT a threat! CLICK HERE to hear it out of their own mouths)



When in doubt, justify taking a position on the chess board as a humanitarian effort. "We're liberating them."



Keep in mind, the NeoCons knew their plans for running America and the WORLD would be a hard sell. Perhaps that is why the document specifically says a "New Pearl Harbor" event would help speed things along. How convenient they got JUST THAT less than a year after taking power, in the form of 911.



In addition, the authors might have seen the truly "free press" nature of the internet as a threat to their agenda, as they also included: "Control the International Commons of cyberspace" in their battle plan. Well think about it... Where would YOU have gained access to this documented information if not HERE? ...the mainstream media sure hasn't touched on any of it.



Who Wins at our expense?


Sadly America, Iraq is just the beginning. After the war, permanent bases will be established under the guise of defending the oil and the peace in the Middle East. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it really is: A jump-off point for American forces to easily attack and invade other nations in the region. Unlike the American people, the nations in the Middle East are well aware of what is going on. They've undoubtedly read the Neo-Conservative's plans, laid out in no uncertain terms, in the their own PNAC report.



….Unfortunately, the American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America secures Iraq, will see too late that there will be no “exit." The only “Plan” is for more of the same. This never ending "war on terror" is the perfect vehicle to expand and consolidate power. It is the means by which their "Pax Americana" will be created.



The defense contractors who feed on American tax revenue will see TRILLIONS of dollars pour in as they arm the new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war on terror at a profit, as “terror” sends their ratings through the roof. Those within the administration who believe every regional opponent to Israel must be laid to waste will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global "freedom at gunpoint" will see their plans unfold.



Restrictions on our liberties will tighten further in the name of "keeping us safe." Terrorist attacks and recruiting will skyrocket as a result of "pre-emptive" aggression against the world. Oddly enough, an increase in "terror" will only make it easier for the Neo-Cons to further their aims. ...It will justify increasing their military aggression, as well as justify their oppression of those at home who challenge them.



Now THINK about that for a minute. ...They actually have MORE TO GAIN if they FAIL to protect us!

Don't think so? Look no further than 9/11.



9/11 consisted of a series of "defense failures" that defy ALL LOGIC and yet many of the most troubling questions about "how" certain things were allowed to happen were ignored. Those who were responsible for the failures were not held accountable! ...And the administration that oversaw the WORST "goof" in government history??? They were REWARDED with MORE power, MORE money, MORE control, and a perfect opportunity to move forward with the plans they had made years earlier. ...Isn't this type of arrangement called a "Conflict of Interest?"



And Let's Face it Folks: When they promised Congress they would "Only use war as a last resort" they spoke the FIRST and most deceptive statement of all. ...War wasn't the "last" option on the table...it was the ONLY option. If they couldn't move forward with their "Unipolar" plans following something like 9/11, they'd be hard pressed to move them forward at all. (Information referenced from an article posted at truthout.org )



To View a New Documentary on "PNAC" CLICK HERE


You can view or download the Full PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report HERE.



Real Republicans, take note: There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between “Conservative Republican Values” and “NeoConservative Values.”
Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor protecting our civil liberties- Truly American
NeoConservatives: See our civil liberties as an unnecessary restriction on government power.

Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor a smaller, less intrusive government- Truly American
NeoConservatives: Are Willing to spend money (and expand government reach) without restraint, provided it helps them further their agenda.

Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor Fiscal Responsibility and reducing taxes- GOOD FOR AMERICA
NeoConservatives: Fool the public into thinking a “tax cut” (Paid for with PRINTED MONEY) is actually beneficial. …hiding the fact that it amounts to little more than a loan that the taxpayer (or their children) will have to repay WITH INTEREST.


***Side Note on current fiscal policy: Tax cuts, on PRINTED MONEY are NOT tax cuts! It is like me saying I’m going to give you $1,000, but then I secretly add a 1,500 debt to your mortgage…Eventually, that money is going to have to be paid with interest and it is going to be TAXES that pays it. To say nothing of the additional spending that has been passed on printed money by this administration…to say nothing of how that further reduces the value of the dollars in your pocket! If these were “democrats” in office, they would have (rightfully) been raked over coals by now!

Recently, I was asked by somebody on a message board: "What is your urgent concern?" My reply:
“What is my “urgent concern?” Regain control of OUR GOVERNMENT. Then clean up the mess in Iraq best we can. (Not reward those who created that mess (and others) with additional opportunity to do more of the same.) Then DRASTICALLY DECREASE the size and reach of government in our lives. As far as foreign policy goes, George W. hooked me good with his original plans for America. I seem to remember him speaking of a more “humble foreign policy” that steered clear of “Nation Building” and focused on building a stronger, more united and free America. Sign me up for that plan.”
The bottom line is this administration CLAIMS to be “Conservative Republican” when it clearly is NOT. In making this claim, it gains the UNEARNED support of a FIERCELY LOYAL group of Republican Voters... Voters who expect certain core values to be upheld: SMALLER Government, Fiscal Responsibility, STRONG protection of Civil Liberties, etc.

As soon as we STOP thinking of this as a "Republican Administration" and start reading up on what the NEO-CON agenda is, (and see how this administration has shamelessly manipulated good Americans to further that agenda) the outrage comes quick."

Suggested Reading: (Also see the STL Store)
Worse Than Watergate is just one book that reveals plenty of legitimate concerns regarding the “Bush/Cheney” vision for America. …it isn’t the “America” any self-respecting Republican would ever support.
The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. For any who think some in our government might have actually LET the 911 attacks happen, this book brings up mounds of supporting evidence. …for instance:
How exactly is it that the STRATEGIC MILITARY COMMAND CENTER of the United States of America (The Pentagon) was unable to defend itself against a 757?

…the most HEAVILY defended building on this PLANET, was unable to stop a HUGE (150,000 pound) airplane traveling at just 500 Miles per hour, even after it had already been established (for more than an hour) that planes were being hijacked, slammed into buildings, and one was heading that way… If not under those circumstances, under WHAT circumstances COULD the building be defended? …and how come nobody was held accountable for such a catastrophic failure?

The Northwoods document proves that high ranking officials in our government have openly conspired to carry out "terrorist attacks" against US targets in order to justify attacking another country.
READ THAT AGAIN! The Northwoods document PROVES that high ranking officials in OUR OWN GOVERNMENT have conspired to carry out terrorist attacks against US targets in order to justify attacking another country.

This document is available at the National Security Archive (George Washington University website.) It took 40 years and the Freedom of Information Act to get it released. …Start reading on page 10 for the unbelievable truth regarding how far some in power are willing to go to get what they want. And then ask yourself, are you prepared to support this in an AMERICAN government?
IMAGINE THIS News Story America…and then imagine it was our OWN government that conspired to make it so.
Cuba shoots down an American Airliner killing all onboard (Mainly students on vacation.)

The US government announced today that Cuba shot down a civilian airliner in an unprovoked act of aggression against the USA. Congressmen Deceito of Washington went on the record, saying: “We MUST take action immediately if we ever plan on having safety in the skies."

He went on to say:
“Any failure to act decisively and immediately will be perceived as weakness around the world. Failing to respond to this heinous act would be akin to America saying: It’s OK to shoot our planes down and kill our children. That would be a mistake America can’t afford to make.”

As usual, the “conspiracy theorists” are once again showing their utter lack of respect for America (and the dead) by questioning the governments account.

Even though there were numerous eyewitness accounts that a Cuban Mig was tailing flight #2235, and flight recorders plainly reveal the pilot issuing a mayday call; specifically: “Mayday, mayday, we are being fired on by a Cuban Mig” Bob Accurato (Known Conspiracy Theorist) was quoted as saying:

"It is ALL A LIE. That wasn't really a Cuban Mig, it was an American F-86 that our government painted up to LOOK LIKE a Cuban mig. ...and it wasn't really a civilian airliner either. The government loaded a bunch of people (under fake names) on a plane, landed it, and then flew another plane by remote control into the airspace where the fake Cuban Mig then shot it down. They did this so they could justify attacking Cuba.”

NOW, Who would believe the “conspiracy theory” over the much simpler “official account?” NOBODY! …do you suppose those who would conspire to do such a thing wouldn't be prepared to use that to their advantage?

READ the Northwood’s Document, and you will find out that (in the above hypothetical scenario) it would be the “Conspiracy Theorist” who was telling the truth. Thank goodness John F. Kennedy wasn’t amused by the Northwood’s plan. He rejected it and was in the process of trying to dismantle our country's corrupt "under-government" just prior to being assassinated.

GOOD NEWS! StopTheLie.com is now available on CD ROM! Over 6 hours of Video and Audio at your fingertips (no need to download.) Get (5) copies for just $9.99!! Or, if you really want to help "Spread the Word" you can get 10 copies for just $14.99! Secure payment, shipping and handling provided by SelfHelp.com. Click Here to Order!

PLEASE - SPREAD THE WORD
stopthelie.com



To: michael97123 who wrote (73095)3/23/2005 9:50:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention
____________________

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
The New York Times
March 23, 2005
nytimes.com

WASHINGTON - The vote by Congress to allow the federal courts to take over the Terri Schiavo case has created distress among some conservatives who say that lawmakers violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy by intervening in the ruling of a state court.

The emerging debate, carried out against a rush of court decisions and Congressional action, has highlighted a conflict of priorities among conservatives and signals tensions that Republicans are likely to face as Congressional leaders and President Bush push social issues over the next two years, party leaders say.

"This is a clash between the social conservatives and the process conservatives, and I would count myself a process conservative," said David Davenport of the Hoover Institute, a conservative research organization. "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism."


Stephen Moore, a conservative advocate who is president of the Free Enterprise Fund, said: "I don't normally like to see the federal government intervening in a situation like this, which I think should be resolved ultimately by the family: I think states' rights should take precedence over federal intervention. A lot of conservatives are really struggling with this case."

Some more moderate Republicans are also uneasy. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."

"It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step."

In interviews over the past two days, conservatives who expressed concern about the turn of events in Congress stopped short of condemning the vote in which overwhelming majorities supported the Schiavo bill, and they generally applauded the goal of trying to keep Ms. Schiavo alive. But they said they were concerned about what precedent had been set and said the vote went against Republicans who were libertarian, advocates of states' rights or supporters of individual rights.

"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

While the intensity of the dissent appears to be rising - Mr. Warner made a point Tuesday of calling attention to his little-noticed opposition in a nearly empty Senate chamber over the weekend - support for the measure among Republican and conservative leaders still appears strong. In interviews, some conservatives either dismissed the argument that the vote was a federal intrusion on states' rights or argued that their opposition to euthanasia as part of their support of the right-to-life movement trumped any aversion they might have to a dominant federal government.

"There's a larger issue in play," and Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, "and that is the whole issue of the definition of life. The issue of when is it a life is a broader issue than just a state defining that. I don't think we can have 50 different definitions of life."

Other Republicans who supported the Schiavo bill said they were wrestling conflicting beliefs. Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, a former governor and a strong advocate of states' rights, decided to support the bill after determining that his opposition to euthanasia outweighed his views on federalism, an aide said.

Senator Tom Coburn, a newly elected conservative Republican from Oklahoma, said: "This isn't a states' rights issue. What we're saying is they are going to review it. The states are not given the right to take away somebody's constitutional rights."

Representative Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican who is the House majority leader, bristled on Sunday when he was asked about how to square the bill with federalist precepts.

"I really think it is interesting that the media is defining what conservatism is," Mr. DeLay said. "The conservative doctrine here is the Constitution of the United States."

The Republican Party has long associated itself with limiting the power of the federal government over the states, though this is not the only time that party leaders have veered from that position. Most famously, in 2000, it persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn a Florida court ruling ordering a recount of the vote in the presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush.

But now the Schiavo case is illustrating splinters in the conservative movement that Mr. Bush managed to bridge in his last campaign, and the challenges Mr. Bush and Republicans face in trying to govern over the next two years, even though they control Congress as well as the White House.

"The libertarian streak in me says, you know, people should have the right to die," Mr. Moore, of the Free Enterprise Fund, said. "But as so many conservatives, I'm also very pro-life. Those two philosophies are conflicting with each other."

Bob Levy, a fellow with the Cato Institute, argued that Democrats and Republicans alike were being "incredibly hypocritical" in this case: Democrats by suddenly embracing states' rights and Republicans by asserting the power of the federal government.

"These questions are not the business of Congress," Mr. Levy said of the Schiavo dispute. "The Constitution does not give Congress the power to define life or death.
The only role for the court is once the state legislature establishes what the rules are, the court can decide if the rules have been properly applied."