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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (43622)	12/24/2005 1:45:13 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

The Media—Pro-America or Pro-Terrorists? chronwatch.com Copyright © 2005 ChronWatch. Written by Lee Ellis December 23, 2005 The New York Times keeps printing “news” that aids and abets those who hate the USA. The most recent example of this is the recent propaganda using a misleading story written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau which reads in part, “Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.” This has proven to be wrong, and is taken from a book to be released next week by a Viacom publisher. Viacom also owns CBS so one might well suspect that this will also be promoted on “60 Minutes.” President Bush has explained his war-time powers, had alerted intelligence committee members of Congress and had also followed up with F.I.S.A. court warrants. These phone calls were NOT domestic, but rather were calls from the Middle East to America. It was revealed by NewsMax that Pelosi and Reid finally confessed that they had been informed by President Bush about these NSA wiretaps and had said nothing back then. Also revealed is that President Clinton had done many similar taps via a program called Echelon. Where were the leaks then to the leftist press? This New York Times “news” was the talk of Congress as the members discussed the renewal of the Patriot Act. Thus a filibuster against the Act renewal was started in Congress by Democrats and a few centrist Republicans If the Patriot Act is not renewed in its entirety, our government will go back to the days prior to 9/11 when a policy wall kept our law enforcement agents from sharing information that might have prevented the attacks on America causing the deaths of 3,000 innocent American civilians. This New York Times article has also warned the terrorists who have kept in touch by telephone with their sleeper cell agents in America, that they are being overheard. They must now switch to a safer way of telling their agents when to set off bombs in our subways, buildings, or other public places. Our ability to know about a terror act in advance so that we may help save the life of someone in our family has been denied. This is not the first time that our media has purposely warned our enemies that they might be caught. In 1988, according to Ron Kessler formerly of the NSA, we were monitoring all of bin Laden’s phone calls until the Washington Post blew our cover on this one. Thus, bin Laden was able to switch to a different manner of communicating with his people. As a result, we lost all contact with him. If an agent of the FBI, CIA, or NSA happens to learn that Zarqawi or one of his commanders is trying to reach an American here in the USA, do you really want this agent unable to listen in on this conversation until he can find some judge somewhere who can grant a warrant, knowing that this delay could cause us to miss hearing the orders being transmitted to a sleeper cell here in the USA? Do you really think that it better to allow this “civil liberty” to an American traitor rather than do what is necessary to save hundreds of innocent lives of men, women, and children? And if your answer is “I don’t want an agent listening to my phone calls,” what makes you think that any agent would waste his or her time listening to your boring calls? The only people who should worry about their calls or library visits being monitored are terrorists intent on killing Americans! In other words, if the leftist Democrats and centrist Republicans have their way, our national security agencies will not be allowed to protect us until AFTER the terrorists have blown up the bus, train, or plane in which we and our family are riding, or the school to which our children are in daily with their teachers. Perhaps it is a theater, an arena for a sports event, or our church or temple that is shattered by bombs or gas or machine gun fire. Only then can anyone who is still alive investigate? This is NOT a military war like the past wars between countries where we fought a nation’s uniformed soldiers who respect POWs under the Geneva Accords. These are thugs who actually get pleasure from killing or maiming innocent women, men, and their babies or children. If anyone really thinks that he or she has already lost a liberty or two due to the Patriot Act, (I cannot think of one that I have personally lost) then these people had better be prepared to live under Islamic rule, because this may well happen if we do NOT renew this important law and if the media keep aiding and abetting our enemies with propaganda labeled as news! The old adage, “United we stand; Divided, we fall” is still true as is the World War II saying, “Loose Lips Sink Ships.” May I add, “Media Madness May Murder Many”? About the Writer: Lee Ellis is a retired journalist and a former vice president of both CBS and Gannett. He resides in Indio, California, where he writes op-eds that appear in several local newspapers. Lee receives e-mail at indiolee@dc.rr.com.

To: michael97123 who wrote (43622)	12/24/2005 2:46:17 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

Yesterday's Wonderland column in the WSJ has an interesting take on the political environment here. The column is titled "Washington's Year of Living Unseriously." Here's an excerpt: "I suspect there have been more serious, good-faith conversations toward a common national purpose among Iraq's leading political figures this past year than have occurred on any subject in Washington. "The rank politicizing of foreign policy is unfortunate because functional bipartisanship in this realm once served as ballast to the predictable divisions over domestic policy. Now, with the ballast gone, the two sides of our politics hardly ever touch. Even if the government informs senior Democrats such as Senator Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of a sensitive policy decision like the surveillance of suspected terrorist phone calls, their only comments on the leaked press reports are feigned expressions of denunciation and outrage. America's enemies and competitors will be popping their champagne corks next weekend in celebration of a Washington whose first response to undeniable threats is to disadvantage the other political party. "What makes this standoff disturbing is that it comes at a critical turn in history, and neither side seems able to climb down from it. The quick rise of new communications technologies like the Internet has made it possible to wage total political war 24/7. Both sides use the Internet daily to thwart, impede and kneecap the other side. There's no downtime anymore, no space to reassess one's position or arguments. Fight or die, every day. More than at any previous time, much of political life now consists of feeding propaganda into this combat machinery." online.wsj.com