By their own admission, The New York Times knew about the perfectly legal intercepting of communications between international terror forces and those acting on their behalf in America for nearly a year. So why did the Times withhold this information from the public for so long only to decide all of a sudden to print the story now?
The answer couldn't be more clear: it's because those at the Times and in the Democrat party who are rooting for the Islamic terrorists in Iraq and around the world, recognized that they needed something "big" to counteract the great victory for peace, freedom and democracy that was last week's overwhelmingly successful elections in Iraq.
This collusion between the leftist media and the Democrat party is not new. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes not only timed the story in which they were finally caught using forged documents to the desperate situation of the then-plummeting John Kerry polls, but were only able to obtain the forged documents in the first place by offering a quid pro quo of access to the highest levels of the Kerry campaign to the partisan who provided them with the forged documents.
Make no mistake about it, many in the Democrat party -- the vast majority of its leadership and powerbrokers -- and their ideological brethren in the Old Media are on the side of America's enemies.
It is not a coincidence that the Democrats' last "standard bearer" was a man who viciously slandered one million of his "band of brothers" in an effort to aid and abet the communist takeover of South Vietnam.
Nor is it a coincidence that the party's previous standard bearer joined in anti-American marches in the Soviet Union. Nor that an earlier one (Jimmy Carter) allowed the Communists to expand into Afghanistan and Central America, held illegal secret meetings with the Arab/Islamic terrorists in the West Bank and stood by doing nothing as America's ally, the Shah of Iran, was replaced by the first Islamic terror state in Iran.
This hatred for America is why Democrats by the hundreds of thousands -- in the wake of the 9/11 attacks no less -- marched arm in arm with communists, anarchists and Islamic fascists in anti-America rallies euphemistically dubbed "anti-war rallies" by the same folks who forge documents on their nightly news programs, invent bogus stories of Korans being flushed down toilets for their newsweeklies and now endanger American citizens by timing the release of top secret US wartime strategies to the needs and demands of the Democrat party.
It is why they chant "war is not the answer" only when that war protects Americans. Recall that there were no such cries or parades nor did the press invent a "peace mom" like the lunatic Cindy Sheehan when Bill Clinton was killing Christians on behalf of the Islamists in Bosnia and targeting "infidels" to the benefit of the Moslems in Kosovo.
Recall the vigor with which the leftist media sought to destroy the 254 American heroes from across the political spectrum who offered their first-hand, eyewitness testimony about John Kerry's being unfit for duty and compare it to the loving coverage given a quite literally insane "peace mom" whose rants and ramblings put her on par only with another leftist darling, Howard "Yeeee-ha" Dean, but whose rants and ramblings are viciously anti-American (she recently called Louisiana "occupied territories.")
Those of you old enough to remember the desperate fight put up by these same forces in the eighties, when they marched in the streets, viciously slandering America and calling Ronald Reagan"Hitler", "Cowboy", "stupid" and, worst of all, "Christian" in an effort to protect the most murderous regime in human history (the Soviet Union) must recognize the Old Media's game and the Democrat party's hand in it all.
Why so many in the Democrat party -- and their flunkies in the Old Media -- so hate America is explained in another of my pieces ("Dems Hate America...") available in the archives of my blog. Suffice it to say here that they do hate America -- so much so that they are on the side of every one of America's enemies -- from the Soviet Union to the Ayatollahs to the North Vietnamese Communists and now to the Islamic fascist mass murderers in Iraq.
A free and vibrant press is essential to a strong America. But a corrupt and treasonous one is exactly as devastating. The New York Times must be investigated as to how they illegally obtained classified war-time information and if the unlikely timing of its publication after months in their possession was coordinated with members of the Democrat party.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Dammit, Evan, you're so...so...so...angry!!! Hold it, a liberal inhabited my body for a second. Thanks for opening my eyes to the, um, coincidence on the leak's delayed appearance with the Iraqi elections.
miami,
Good luck on your new endeavor.
Evan,
Article IV of the Bill of Rights state:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
seems pretty straight forward, don't you think?
Alva,
Obviously it's NOT "straight forward" because President Clinton and President Carter claimed the same rights.
You see, Alva, in order to be a thinker instead of a mindless drone you can't always ignore what you don't want to know about.
There are other parts of the constitution that say other things in contradiction. Every single court has upheld the THREE presidents (and their attornies general) so maybe there's more to it than you're simplistic arguments.
So now, at a time of war when the enemy wants to massacre you for being an "infidel" (the way they are murdering Jews in Israel for being infidels and Christians in the Sudan for being infidels and Budhists in India for being infidels and children in Russia for being infidels etc), are you finally going to grow up and be an honest broker or just a "useful idiot" to the enemy?
Evan, really? other parts of the Constitution say differently? Let's look!
Article. II.
Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
See any spy provisions there?
Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Is any here?
Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
Maybe when they were talking about Electors the founding fathers meant NSA intelligence operatives, huh?
Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
There it is! No…wait.
Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Hmm. Still not seeing any provision to allow the President to spy on Americans…
Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Does this mean that Bush can spy on Cheney?
Clause 7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
THAT IT! The President can receive COMPENSATION for his services….in the form of SPYING ON AMERICANS!
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So, the President is supposed to DEFEND the Constitution…as opposed to wiping his ass with it. Who wouldda thunk it?
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Still not seeing any provision that would allow the President to violate the Fourth Amendment.
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Now, I understand. We have a “treaty” with the NSA to spy on Americans. That must be it.
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Think there’s any vacancies at the NSA?
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
I suppose this means that Bush is allowed to spy on Congress, but only when giving his State of the Union address, right? Wait! I know! I know! This MUST have been the clause that Bush was talking about that grants him the ability to SPY ON AMERICANS!
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Miami,
Apparently, you have not read the Fourth Amendment.
“The right of the PEOPLE to be SECURE in their PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, and EFFECTS, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, SHALL NOT be violated, and NO WARRANTS shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by OATH or AFFIRMATION, and particularly describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.”
Since you hate America so much, I can understand why you hate the Bill of Rights too, but FISA enacted a COURT that is secure so intelligence-sensitive warrants COULD be issued. FISA is not the issue. The issue is that BUSH VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, by ordering (against the will of Congress) wide-spread WARRANT-LESS spying.
You seriously need to read something other than Matt Drudge. Drudge’s lie has already been exposed. Clinton permitted spying on people OUTSIDE the United States, who are not citizens…in other words, the 4th amendment does not apply outside US borders. The problem is that Bush ordered spying on American citizens WITHIN our borders. I realize that you conservatives are not that bright, and have never read the Constitution, but please try to keep these rather simple principals straight.
Congress no more has the right to enact a law that limits the powers of the President than the President can put forth an executive order limiting the powers of Congress.
The fact that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both clearly argued for the inherent power of the Presidency (and neither one during a time of war, mind you) would convince honest people that this is not a "Bush issue."
But the leftists don't care. They'll attack Karl Rove over nothing while Sandy Berger is caught stealing top secret documents. They'll scream about Fox News while Dan Rather forges documents. They'll scream "fascists" as their thugs break into forty different Republican headquarters and beat people.
Truth holds no place in the "mind" of the Democrat. It's why they vote FOR and AGAINST money for our troops, scream how Jack Murtha is right and then vote 406-3 against his bill (even Murtha voted against his own bill!!!), it's why they don't care that Cindy Sheehan is a lunatic and Ted Kennedy murdered a woman and Al Sharpton helped fake the rape of a child and Air America stole nearly a million dollars from children to pay Al Franken, etc. They are simply incapable of rational thought and the thugs they champion keep taking away their rights.
Aren’t you confusing the issue again Evan? Congress isn’t limiting the “rights” of the President. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT limits the right of government, particularly the President from violating OUR right as a PEOPLE to be SECURE in our PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, and EFFECTS, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.
The REICH WING lie that Clinton and Carter spied on Americans citizens has been so thoroughly debunked that its hilarious that you right wing sheep still site it. Clinton is not the issue here. Karl Rove is not the issue here. Sandy Berger, Tom DeLay, Jack Abrimoff, or Monica Lewinsky is not the issue here. The issue is that GEORGE W. BUSH admitted to the American People that he was violating their FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, which is a FELONY, therefore, AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
Like I said, NO ONE but George Bush is at issue here. Are you Reich Wingers really going to tell me, if you are completely honest with yourselves, that if the President, George W. Bush BROKE THE LAW, and VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, that it should be IGNORED, so he can VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS AGAIN?
Bush has been given ONE MANDATE. That is NOT to protect and defend US, but to PROTECT AND DEFEND the CONSTITUTION. If, as President, you cannot defend that great document, and instead WALKS ALL OVER IT, then how can be a legitimate President? And HOW IN THE HELL can ANYONE say they “love their country” when they defend a man who is SPITTING UPON THE PRINCIPALS THIS GREAT NATION WAS FOUNDED UPON?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt May 7, 1918
Post a Comment