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: Sully- who wrote (72001)	5/23/2009 12:01:49 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Emily Litella [Never mind!] Pelosi By John Power Line Nancy Pelosi made the absurd claim that the CIA "lied" to her and "misleads Congress all the time," without offering any support for her explosive assertions. I think everyone understands that Pelosi offered no evidence because she has none. Now, naturally, she wants to forget the whole thing: she says that she will have nothing more to say on the matter. Think about it: the Speaker of the House of Representatives claims that the CIA, on which both Congress and the Executive Branch rely in making vital, life or death decisions, "lies" and "misleads Congess all the time." If that were true, it would be a fact of astonishing importance. It would be vitally important to investigate and get to the bottom of why the Agency "misleads Congress," so that we can sweep the liars and misleaders out of office and clean up the Agency. Right? Wrong, apparently. When House Republicans introduced a resolution to investigate the truth or falsity of Pelosi's claims, it was defeated. Every single Democrat in the House, including all of the supposed "Blue Dogs"--Blue Unicorns, I prefer to call them, since they exist only in rumor--voted to sweep the matter under the rug. Nancy Pelosi is a fool and a liar, which is why she says: never mind. Anyone who saw her self-destructive press conference must wonder, further, whether she requires medication to get through the day and sometimes forgets to take her pills. There is no other obvious explanation for her bizarre performance, for her wild charges, or for her current, pathetic plea to forget the whole thing. The country, to put it mildly, is not in good hands. powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (72001)	5/23/2009 12:46:31 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Prisoner Radicalization, Gitmo, Terrorism, and Obama Peter Kirsanow The Corner The report that three of the four Newburgh, New York terror suspects were radicalized in prison should be an obvious caution to President Obama regarding his plan to close Guantánamo and possibly relocate the inmates to U.S. prisons. The problem of prisoner radicalization has been a growing concern for federal and state prison authorities since 9/11. The president, no doubt, is well-aware of the national security implications of the problem. In fact, several months ago the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a report to the White House noting the gravity of the matter. The Commission found that inmates in U.S. prisons are susceptible to radical rhetoric from fellow inmates and religious volunteers (who provide religious services, materials, or instruction to inmates, capitalizing on prisoners' disillusionment and alienation from society). Prisons that are fertile ground for street gangs are also promising recruitment venues for radicals. The remote locations of many prisons should not be seen as providing any insulation from the effects of radicalization. Rather, inmate isolation exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for prisoners to maintain contact with their families, communities, and qualified religious instructors — all of whom can provide buffers against radical entreaties. The threat of prisoner radicalization to national security is significant enough that over the last few years prison authorities have taken a number of steps to limit the potential for radicalization. The steps include insuring that no inmate-led religious groups meet without staff supervision, installing electronic monitoring devices in prison chapels, inspecting the content of religious materials brought into the prisons, and scrutinizing religious volunteers and contractors. In 2004, the Bureau of Prisons took the step of issuing a revised policy on religious practices that provides that prison officials shall refuse to authorize meetings of any religious groups whose doctrines, rituals, or practices espouse domestic and/or foreign terrorism, or advocate any form of violence. This wasn't done as part of a Cheney-inspired plot to destroy civil liberties, but to stem a real and growing problem in our prison system. The Gitmo detainees have the potential to be the rock stars of radicalization. Their "battlefield cred" easily trumps the "street cred" of the ordinary prison proselytizer. Placing them anywhere near U.S. prisoners in order to placate the base wouldn't be the most responsible exercise of presidential authority. The Commission recommended, among other things, that prison officials take national security into consideration — carefully, even-handedly, and without relying on ethnic or religious stereotypes — when reviewing all requests for religious accommodation. Yet even this simple recommendation was assailed by liberals on the Commission as "subverting prisoners' religious freedoms with generalized, non-specific claims of national security." Let's hope that the Obama administration doesn't need the specificity of a bombed temple or downed military transport plane to reconsider its decision to close Gitmo. corner.nationalreview.com