posted on April 6, 2007 11:19:29 AM new
When this President is working to PROTECT America and her interests and the wacko, unAmericans are fighting against that...they are TRAITORS to our Nation.
Kiss the ass of the terrorist supporters, those who give financial aid to the muslims who are murdering our soldiers in Iraq.
Then try and convince me that you 'support our troops'.
What a liar you are.
You don't. You CHEER for our enemies....and support those political FOOLS who would sell America out in a nano second.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 12:04:58 PM new
No, the traitors to our nation are those like you who are willing to slaughter and maim OTHERS to satisfy YOUR blood-lust.
Those who strive for a peaceful solution to world problems are reality based, knowing that we ALL have to live on this planet and never ending war is a horrible waste of life and money.
You vampires will persevere but so will the true patriots...those who want a truly strong country and peace and prosperity for ALL Americans.
posted on April 6, 2007 12:23:14 PM new
There have ALWAYS been wars.....and there always will be.
People decide which 'side' they're on. Good or EVIL
And imo, those who are confused about who is what are the radical, progressive/socialist liberals.
This administration is NOT EVIL.....nor is it your ENEMY.
You are very confused on who the enemy IS and refuse to believe their stated GOALS for our Nation.
That is nothing short of suicidal, imo.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 12:30:56 PM new
No, the traitors to our nation are those like you who are willing to slaughter and maim OTHERS to satisfy YOUR blood-lust.
Just because there has always been wars does not mean that's a good thing.
There have many wars that have been AVOIDED through tact, intelligence and diplomacy....none of which YOU would understand.
Yes, this administration IS evil and the enemy of any American who isn't extremely wealthy.
None of your uneducated rantings will change that. The fact that YOU support them is proof.
The true threat to America are people like you ...sheep who obey their leaders without question.
posted on April 6, 2007 12:59:52 PM newPelosi Is Our Neville Chamberlain
Pelosi Is Our Neville Chamberlain
By Ronald Kessler
With her trip to Syria, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi achieved two things: She undercut her own credibility in Washington, and she spotlighted what is wrong with the Democrats' approach to national security.
The spectacle of Pelosi making nice with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and accepting at face value his claim that he is ready to "resume the peace process" with Israel had a large portion of official Washington tittering.
At the same time, Syrian authorities were telling the local press that there had been no change in its position. And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar al-Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel."
Pelosi's Charade
Moreover, Pelosi misrepresented Israel's position to Assad, announcing that she had delivered a message from Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. Olmert quickly issued a statement denying that.
Even the Washington Post saw through the charade.
"Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position, but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda," an editorial in the paper said.
The editorial added that "Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."
While that is certainly true, the specter of Pelosi naively chatting with Assad and announcing that she had helped achieve a diplomatic breakthrough also highlights all that is wrong with the Democrats' approach to foreign police today.
Syria hosts the exiled leadership of Hamas, as well as other Palestinian radical groups, and is a major supplier of funds to Hezbollah. Syria is also believed to be involved in the assassination of Lebanese political figures and allowing its territory to be used by jihadists fighting against the United States-led coalition and the coalition-backed government in Iraq.
History Repeats
Pelosi's willingness to undercut the president and accept the word of the chief of state of a sponsor of terrorism is on a par with the Democrats' effort to set a timetable for fighting the war in Iraq.
It brings to mind the efforts of Joseph P. Kennedy, the founder of the Kennedy dynasty, to appease Adolf Hitler.
As ambassador to the Court of St. James, Joe Kennedy met on June 13, 1938 with Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador. The two got along famously, and Dirksen later reported on the conversation in great detail to Baron Ernst von Weizsäcker, the German state secretary.
According to that report, Kennedy confided to the German ambassador that Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, was anxious to have some sort of settlement with Germany.
By saying this, he undercut Great Britain's negotiating position with Hitler.
Moreover, Kennedy said President Roosevelt was not anti-German and wanted friendly relations with Hitler.
However, no European leader spoke well of the Germans because most of them were "afraid of the Jews" and did not "dare to say anything good about Germany . . ." Kennedy stated.
Even as the two met at the German embassy in London, Hitler was planning to gobble up most of Europe and exterminate the Jews.
The following year, World War II began after Hitler invaded Poland.
"Speaker Pelosi is the Neville Chamberlain of our time," said Brad Blakeman, a Republican strategist who was an aide in the Bush White House. "Cowering to and appeasing the dictator of a terrorist state was a disgrace to the high office she holds. The Sryians used this visit to validate their bad behavior by propagandizing the whole visit and her anti-war stance."
The Pelosi visit underscores that, when it comes to dealing with our enemies, the Democrats live in a dream world.
Yet when another terrorist attack occurs in the U.S., they will be the first to say President Bush did not do enough to protect the country.
==========
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 01:03:45 PM new
No, the traitors to our nation are those like you who are willing to slaughter and maim OTHERS to satisfy YOUR blood-lust.
Just because there has always been wars does not mean that's a good thing.
There have many wars that have been AVOIDED through tact, intelligence and diplomacy....none of which YOU would understand.
Yes, this administration IS evil and the enemy of any American who isn't extremely wealthy.
None of your uneducated rantings will change that. The fact that YOU support them is proof.
The true threat to America are people like you ...sheep who obey their leaders without question.
posted on April 6, 2007 01:05:58 PM new
Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed
Documents in National Archives Prove
George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded
with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor
By John Buchanan
Exclusive to The New Hampshire Gazette
10-10-3
WASHINGTON -- After 60 years of inattention and even denial by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his "enemy national" partners.
The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s, personally funded Adolf Hitler's rise to power by the subversion of democratic principle and German law.
Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather, continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.
No Story?
For six decades these historical facts have gone unreported by the mainstream U.S. media. The essential facts have appeared on the Internet and in relatively obscure books, but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes. This story has also escaped the attention of "official" Bush biographers, Presidential historians and publishers of U.S. history books covering World War II and its aftermath.
The White House did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
The Summer of '42
The unraveling of the web of Bush-Harriman-Thyssen U.S. enterprises, all of which operated out of the same suite of offices at 39 Broadway in New York under the supervision of Prescott Bush, began with a story that ran simultaneously in the New York Herald-Tribune and Washington Post on July 31, 1941. By then, the U.S. had been at war with Germany for nearly eight months.
"Hitler's Angel Has $3 Million in U.S. Bank," declared the front-page Herald-Tribune headline. The lead paragraph characterized Fritz Thyssen as "Adolf Hitler's original patron a decade ago." In fact, the steel and coal magnate had aggressively supported and funded Hitler since October 1923, according to Thyssen's autobiography, I Paid Hitler. In that book, Thyssen also acknowledges his direct personal relationships with Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Rudolf Hess.
The Herald-Tribune also cited unnamed sources who suggested Thyssen's U.S. "nest egg" in fact belonged to "Nazi bigwigs" including Goebbels, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, or even Hitler himself.
Business is Business
The "bank," founded in 1924 by W. Averell Harriman on behalf of Thyssen and his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. of Holland, was Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York City. According to government documents, it was in reality a clearing house for a number of Thyssen-controlled enterprises and assets, including as many as a dozen individual businesses. UBC also bought and shipped overseas gold, steel, coal, and U.S. Treasury bonds. The company's activities were administered for Thyssen by a Netherlands-born, naturalized U.S. citizen named Cornelis Lievense, who served as president of UBC. Roland Harriman was chairman and Prescott Bush a managing director.
The Herald-Tribune article did not identify Bush or Harriman as executives of UBC, or Brown Brothers Harriman, in which they were partners, as UBC's private banker. A confidential FBI memo from that period suggested, without naming the Bush and Harriman families, that politically prominent individuals were about to come under official U.S. government scrutiny as Hitler's plunder of Europe continued unabated.
After the "Hitler's Angel" article was published Bush and Harriman made no attempts to divest themselves of the controversial Thyssen financial alliance, nor did they challenge the newspaper report that UBC was, in fact, a de facto Nazi front organization in the U.S.
Instead, the government documents show, Bush and his partners increased their subterfuge to try to conceal the true nature and ownership of their various businesses, particularly after the U.S. entered the war. The documents also disclose that Cornelis Lievense, Thyssen's personal appointee to oversee U.S. matters for his Rotterdam-based Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V., via UBC for nearly two decades, repeatedly denied to U.S. government investigators any knowledge of the ownership of the Netherlands bank or the role of Thyssen in it. Brown Brothers Harriman sent letters to the government seeking reconsideration of the seizures by using false information.
UBC's original group of business associates included George Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather, who had a relationship with the Harriman family that began in 1919. In 1922, Walker and W. Averell Harriman traveled to Berlin to set up the German branch of their banking and investment operations, which were largely based on critical war resources such as steel and coal.
The Walker-Harriman-created German industrial alliance also included partnership with another German titan who supported Hitler's rise, Friedrich Flick, who partnered with Thyssen in the German Steel Trust that forged the Nazi war machine. For his role in using slave labor and his own steel, coal and arms resources to build Hitler's war effort, Flick was convicted at the Nuremberg trials and sentenced to prison.
The Family Business
In 1926, after Prescott Bush had married Walker's daughter, Dorothy, Walker brought Bush in as a vice president of the private banking and investment firm of W.A. Harriman & Co., also located in New York. Bush became a partner in the firm that later became Brown Brothers Harriman and the largest private investment bank in the world. Eventually, Bush became a director of and stockholder in UBC.
However, the government documents note that Bush, Harriman, Lievense and the other UBC stockholders were in fact "nominees," or phantom shareholders, for Thyssen and his Holland bank, meaning that they acted at the direct behest of their German client.
Seized
On October 20, 1942, under authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act, the U.S. Congress seized UBC and liquidated its assets after the war. The seizure is confirmed by Vesting Order No. 248 in the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian and signed by U.S. Alien Property Custodian Leo T. Crowley.
In August, under the same authority, Congress had seized the first of the Bush-Harriman-managed Thyssen entities, Hamburg-American Line, under Vesting Order No. 126, also signed by Crowley. Eight days after the seizure of UBC, Congress invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act again to take control of two more Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses - Holland-American Trading Corp. (Vesting Order No. 261) and Seamless Steel Equipment Corp. (Vesting Order No. 259).
The documents from the Archives also show that the Bushes and Harrimans shipped valuable U.S. assets, including gold, coal, steel and U.S. Treasury bonds, to their foreign clients overseas between 1931-33, as Hitler engineered his rise to power.
Still No Story?
Since 1942, the information has not appeared in any U.S. news coverage of any Bush political campaign, nor has it been included in any of the major Bush family biographies. It was, however, covered extensively in George H.W. Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin. Chaitkin's father served as an attorney in the 1940s for some of the victims of the Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.
The book gave a detailed, accurate accounting of the Bush family's long Nazi affiliation, but no mainstream U.S. media entity reported on or even investigated the allegations, despite careful documentation by the authors. Major booksellers declined to distribute the book, which was dismissed by Bush supporters as biased and untrue. Its authors struggled even to be reviewed in reputable newspapers. That the book was published by Lyndon LaRouche's organization undoubtedly made it easier to dismiss, but does not change the facts.
The essence of the story has been posted for years on various Internet sites, including BuzzFlash.com and TakeBackTheMedia.com, but no online media seem to have independently confirmed it.
In the 1990s, former U.S. Justice Department Nazi war crimes prosecutor John Loftus, now honorary president of the Florida Holocaust Museum, wrote a book and launched a web site (<>www.john-loftus.com) which did breakthrough reporting, including establishing the link between Prescott Bush, Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and forced labor at Auschwitz. Although the widely-respected Loftus established a successful international speaking career with his information, no U.S. newspaper or major TV news program acknowledged his decade of work, nor did he ever see many of the recently released documents.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media have apparently made no attempt since World War II to either verify or disprove the allegations of Nazi collaboration against the Bush family. Instead, they have attempted to dismiss or discredit such Internet sites or "unauthorized" books without any journalistic inquiry or research into their veracity.
Loyal Defenders
The National Review ran an essay on September 1 by their White House correspondent Byron York, entitled "Annals of Bush-Hating." It begins
mockingly: "Are you aware of the murderous history of George W. Bush - indeed, of the entire Bush family? Are you aware of the president's Nazi sympathies? His crimes against humanity? And do you know, by the way, that George W. Bush is a certifiable moron?" York goes on to discredit the "Bush is a moron" IQ hoax, but fails to disprove the Nazi connection.
The more liberal Boston Globe ran a column September 29 by Reason magazine's Cathy Young in which she referred to "Bush-o-phobes on the Internet" who "repeat preposterous claims about the Bush family's alleged Nazi connections."
Poles Tackle the Topic
Newsweek Polska, the magazine's Polish edition, published a short piece on the "Bush Nazi past" in its March 5, 2003 edition. The item reported that "the Bush family reaped rewards from the forced-labor prisoners in the Auschwitz concentration camp," according to a copyrighted English-language translation from Scoop Media (<>www.scoop.co.nz). The story also reported the seizure of the various Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.
Still Not Interested
Major U.S. media outlets, including ABC News, NBC News, CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times and Miami Herald, as well as Knight-Ridder Newspapers, have repeatedly declined to investigate the story when information regarding discovery of the documents was presented to them beginning Friday, August 29. Newsweek U.S. correspondent Michael Isikoff, famous for his reporting of big scoops during the Clinton-Lewinsky sexual affair of the 1990s, declined twice to accept an exclusive story based on the documents from the archives.
Aftermath
In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past. There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush, or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in The Boston Globe in 2001.
---
John Buchanan is an award-winning and internationally published journalist and investigative reporter with 33 years of experience in New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Miami. His work has appeared in more than 50 newspapers, magazines and books. He can be reached by e-mail at: [email protected].
This article was forwarded
courtesy of Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
and Tetrahedron Publishing Group
206 North 4th Avenue, Suite 147
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
posted on April 6, 2007 01:09:09 PM new
Oh but history is there to prove you so WRONG.
We saw how 'diplomacy' didn't work during the clinton administration.
Can the liberals NEVER learn?
We were attacked FIVE TIMES....FIVE. And clinton didn't do a thing....even when it was on our soil or against our own USS Cole.
Then they got braver...and 9-11 happened.
Diplomacy with terrorists doesn't work.
All should recognize that by now. All all but the totally blind DO.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 01:12:01 PM new
If the wacko liberals of that time had had their way....
....we'd all be speaking German now.
And if the wacko liberals of today get things the way they want them.....we'll all be on our knees praying the quran 5 times a day.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 01:19:31 PM new
No, the traitors to our nation are those like you who are willing to slaughter and maim OTHERS to satisfy YOUR blood-lust.
Just because there has always been wars does not mean that's a good thing.
There have many wars that have been AVOIDED through tact, intelligence and diplomacy....none of which YOU would understand.
Yes, this administration IS evil and the enemy of any American who isn't extremely wealthy.
None of your uneducated rantings will change that. The fact that YOU support them is proof.
The true threat to America are people like you ...sheep who obey their leaders without question.
posted on April 6, 2007 01:59:13 PM new
Oh.....this just gets better and better.
Since the liberals are wasting so much time with all their investigations of this administration.....
....maybe we should have one about whether or not we can have a TRIAL for pelosi's actions in syria.
That would be FABULOUS.
========
Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
WSJ
BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."
Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.
President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries.
In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."
The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."
Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war."
Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive."
And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.
Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.)
Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.
The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flout the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.
==========
Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 6, 2007 02:04 PM ]
posted on April 6, 2007 02:20:27 PM new
Jesus has nothing to do with this you ATHEIST.
And I'd LOVE nothing more than to see her prosecuted
for her FELONY actions against America during WAR TIME.
Yep....that would be WONDERFUL....and let liberals know you don't TAKE OVER positions that aren't yours.
You get ELECTED to them.
THis wasn't her place nor her job.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 6, 2007 02:22:31 PM new
But she did it anyway and will get away with it.....prosecuting her would be a really bad PR move for repugs and they know it even if a dolt like you doesn't
posted on April 6, 2007 02:29:21 PM new
You're spinning so quickly you're missing all that was stated.
The article points out that NOT ALL who visit are BREAKING THE LAW.....like pelosi did.
RE-read it...TRY and grasp that.
BUT.....has or in the future ANYONE acted in this manner AGAINST OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS and VIOLATING THE LOGAN LAW....like PELOSI has done....
yes, I'd want to see them ALL prosecuted to the FULL extent of the law.
I'm not a hypocrite like you....political parties DON'T determine right from wrong.
My ethics/morals and beliefs aren't based on political parties......like I see yours are.
tsk tskt sk
that's not MY character....like it is your severely LACKING character.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 6, 2007 02:33 PM ]
posted on April 7, 2007 06:51:47 PM newThe Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."
Since that Act was named after my son, he can amend the act at anytime.
The Logansdad Act says anyone that is a Bush supporter and has Linda in their user name shall be banned for life from Vendio.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 10:38:31 AM new
It would help Linda if would stop believing all the conservatives viewpoints in the WSJ op-ed pages as the truth.
The truth always wins, Linda.
WSJ op-ed attacking Pelosi baselessly asserted she may have committed a felony
In an April 6 Wall Street Journal op-ed touted on the Drudge Report and by NBC's Matt Lauer, attorney Robert F. Turner asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "may well have" violated a federal criminal law, the Logan Act, when she met with Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad on April 3. But at no point did Turner note that the issue of whether a member of Congress has violated the Logan Act has never been adjudicated by a court. Nor did he inform readers of a 1975 State Department statement -- noted in a February 1, 2006, report on the Logan Act by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) -- that states: "The clear intent of this provision ... is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in [the Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution." Turner purported to know the scope of a member of Congress' legislative duties for purposes of the Logan Act, and to know that Pelosi has acted outside that scope. But he cited no judicial authority for that specific position -- nor could he, since there are no court decisions interpreting that statute as it may apply to actions by members of Congress.
Turner, a former acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in the Reagan administration, noted in his op-ed that the Logan Act (18 U.S.C. 953) "makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, 'without authority of the United States,' to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any 'disputes or controversies with the United States.' " Turner asserted that Pelosi "may well have" violated that act when she, "against the wishes of the president," traveled to Damascus "to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad."
From his op-ed:
Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress -- of either party -- to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.
Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.
However, a 1975 State Department memo, as quoted in the 2006 CRS report, states the following:
The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953, however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of [then-] Senators [George] McGovern [D-SD] and [John] Sparkman [D-AL] the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.
Senator McGovern's report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States -- that I had come to listen and learn...." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman's contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant's desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.
Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.
At no point in his op-ed did Turner note the State Department opinion. Instead, Turner, relying on Supreme Court rulings in cases not involving allegations of criminal behavior by members of Congress, simply took the position that Pelosi's meeting with Assad may have exceeded the scope of a member of Congress' permissible legislative duties as they would be construed under the Logan Act. His suggestion that the Logan Act prohibits Pelosi's conduct is based neither on the language of the Act nor case law applying it. He pronounced her behavior "particularly inappropriate," given a number of factors, including "her position as a national leader," but also a number of other circumstances that would seem to apply equally to other members of Congress who have met with Assad recently. But the Logan Act does not single out "national leader[s]" as deserving of particular scrutiny, nor even mention them, members of Congress, or the speaker of the House -- who says that she was acting well within her legislative duties. Turner also cited no judicial decision stating what the scope of those duties are for purposes of the Logan Act. Nor could he: As the CRS report noted, "There appear to have been no prosecutions under the Act in its more than 200 year history," and in the judicial mentions of the statute that CRS noted, none of them construed the Act's effect on members of Congress.
Subsequently, during a discussion with NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert on the April 6 edition of NBC's Today, Lauer noted that Turner's op-ed goes "a step further and suggests [Pelosi's] trip may have actually been a felony, that it may have violated something called the Logan Act." As of 7:57 a.m. ET on April 5, internet gossip Matt Drudge had linked to Turner's op-ed with the headline "WSJ: 'Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus'..."
From the April 6 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: So let's get to some of the comments here. Vice President Cheney called Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, quote, "bad behavior." A Washington Post editorial on Thursday called it, quote, "counterproductive and foolish." An op-ed in The Wall Street Journal this morning goes a step further and suggests her trip may have actually been a felony, that it may have violated something called the Logan Act. Tim, is this the way the Democrats wanted to get off the mark in terms of foreign affairs?
RUSSERT: No, they clearly wanted to distinguish themselves from the president's policies. But you have to be careful, as [former] Congressman [Lee] Hamilton [D-IN] suggested. One ranking Democrat, Matt, said, 'We have a Democratic alternative foreign policy.' That is going to be very difficult to articulate and to put into place when you don't control the White House. On the other hand, Speaker Pelosi issued a statement last night on behalf of the bipartisan delegation that she is leading. Her delegation includes Republican congressmen. She's saying she's done nothing wrong or inconsistent with American foreign policy.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 10:51:57 AM new
LOL...you can't read either. tsk tsk tsk
"[i]Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
WSJ
BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad."
then:
"We have a Democratic alternative foreign policy."
Even Tim Russert gets it. Too bad LD can't.
That is going to be very difficult to articulate and to put into place when you don't control the White House."
They don't control the executive branch. You'd better educate yourself to which branch of gov. does what, under our CONSTITUTION.
now...you only make yourself look more ignorant.
============
Plus today's pics on the web show old pelosi shopping for jewelry. While time is slipping away for when our troops will need approval on the FUNDING.
But....to liberal leaders shopping is more important.
Screwed up priorities imo.
Plus even the Israel PM had to correct her FALSE statements to the press. A Mrs. Henry Kissinger - she's NOT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 9, 2007 11:01 AM ]
posted on April 9, 2007 12:54:35 PM newYou'd better educate yourself to which branch of gov. does what, under our CONSTITUTION
Yes Linda you should educate yourself. This country does not need an activist president that thinks he is above the constitution and the judicial branch of the government.
While time is slipping away for when our troops will need approval on the FUNDING.
Congress APPROVED THE FUNDING. They just need to sit down and iron out the differences between the two versions. If the troops do not get the funding, it will be because BUSH VETOED THE BILL.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 9, 2007 03:16:51 PM new
Nope....it will be because the liberals didn't listen to him when he stated what he would do IF they passed....exactly what they chose to pass anyway.
The liberals are now saying they'll give him a 'clean bill'.
We'll see. I don't believe a thing they say until I see it. They keep changing their minds so much. And liberals all saying different things. lol
Get their act together...or Americans are going to fry their rears in '08.
posted on April 11, 2007 09:19:58 AM new
An op-ed that I totally agree with. It's exactly how I've always seen the radical, progressive left.
===========
The Pelosi Democrats' Moral Confusion
By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
In our outrage over Nancy Pelosi's unconstitutional and, according to some legal experts, criminal attempt to steal the reins of American foreign policy from President Bush, let's not tacitly give her a pass for her egregiously wrongheaded assertion that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."
Apparently Pelosi believes:
a) that the terrorist-sponsoring Syrian regime is a nation of good will, whose leaders are reasonable and interested in resolving disputes through peaceful dialogue, and
b) that the U.S. policy of isolating Syria and refusing to negotiate with its leaders until it renounces its support of terrorism is wrong.
How is this different from the Pelosi liberals' position concerning endless "negotiations" with Saddam Hussein? To them, it didn't seem to matter that he had violated umpteen U.N. resolutions and was openly defying weapons inspectors. They always wanted to extend the time for diplomacy and defer the use of force.
Their mindset toward Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no different. They believe he can be reasoned with and that his grievances can be addressed through jawboning. We are the unreasonable ones, not Ahmadinejad, for refusing to engage in bilateral talks with him.
Underlying this liberal penchant for diplomacy at all costs is the assumption that these dictators have legitimate grievances against the United States, that they are prepared to negotiate in good faith and that they desire peace on other than their own nefarious terms.
But are they in good faith?
Neither the Bush administration nor the administration of Israel's Ehud Olmert believes so.
They say that as long as Syria is supporting and supplying our terrorist enemies in Iraq and in bed with Hamas and Hezbollah, there is no point in negotiating.
The Bush and Olmert administrations understand that a terrorist is a terrorist, and terrorists don't believe in true, give-and-take negotiations. Otherwise, they wouldn't be terrorists.
If Pelosi and her cohorts actually believe Syria has any shred of a legitimate moral basis to support flagrantly terrorist organizations, perhaps they could let us in on the secret.
Do they sympathize with Syrian President Bashar Assad's causes? Do they believe one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter? Or do they concede that Assad sponsors terrorism, but think he can be sweet-talked out of it?
For Pelosi to take it upon herself, in defiance of presidential authority, to approach Assad as if he were the reasonable one and the United States were militant and intransigent is simply unconscionable. For her to prop him up as a prospective peace partner is something out of "The Twilight Zone."
Then again, no matter how much the global scenery changes, many things remain the same, and one of those things is the liberal mindset toward evil regimes and dealing with them through sheer diplomacy -- as opposed to confronting them from a position of strength with the express or implied use of force.
Liberals advocated this very same approach to our last global enemy: the communists. In their minds, there was always a rough moral equivalence between the United States and the Soviet Union, especially concerning the arms race.
The Soviets weren't so much an evil regime bent on destroying the United States and world domination as they were reacting defensively to our jingoistic nuclear proliferation. If we would just quit provoking them and unilaterally reduce our armaments, the Soviets would follow suit.
Even after history has repudiated the liberals' approach and vindicated Reagan conservatives, liberals still insist on romanticizing former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
Truth be told, they credit Gorbachev more than Reagan for the end of the Cold War, even though Gorbachev was dragged kicking and screaming toward that end.
At the root of the liberals' misguided notion that evil can be eradicated by talking it to death and that evil dictators are honorable and susceptible to good-faith overtures is their pervasive moral confusion.
How can we expect any different from those who supported the Nicaraguan Sandinistas against true freedom fighters, who lionize Fidel Castro, who believe al-Qaida prisoners when they accuse Americans of torture and who can't even seem to remember how bad things were in Iraq under Saddam Hussein?
If we think it's bad having Nancy Pelosi as the shadow commander in chief, can you imagine if one of her ilk were actually elevated to the real job? Perish the thought.
==========
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
============
And now the news is reporting that old pelosi is going to be going to IRAN...and pull the same stunts.
==============
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 17, 2007 12:49:06 PM new
The actual message was supposed to deliver and did infact deliver.
Israel seeks to reassure Syria: No summer attack
By Aluf Benn
Israel's political and military leadership has been preparing in recent weeks for the possibility of a Syrian attack on the Golan Heights that will start as a result of a "miscalculation" on the part of the Syrians, who may assume that Israel intends to attack them.
Israel, however, has delivered a calming message, and has no plans to attack its northern neighbor.
According to information Israel received, the Syrians are concerned that the United States will carry out an attack against Iran's nuclear installations in the summer, and in parallel Israel would strike Syria and Lebanon.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who visited IDF forces in the North last week, heard an intelligence assessment and was informed of the dangers of a Syrian "miscalculation."
Following his visit to the forces in the field, a decision was made to publicly address the concerns of a possible deterioration with the Syrians, and to send a message that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria, nor is there any coordinated plan with the U.S. for a joint attack against Iran.
The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.
"We hope the message will be understood," political sources in Israel said yesterday. "The question is whether Assad is looking for an excuse ... so that he can carry out an attack against Israel in the summer, or whether this is a mistaken assessment."
Pelosi visited Israel yesterday and told her Israeli interlocutors that the country must speak with Assad and that the door should not be closed to Syria, even though she is aware that Syria supports terrorism and continued cooperation with Iran.
The Democratic congresswoman was critical of the Republican administration's policy of boycotting Damascus.
Her statements hinted that if the Democrats regained control of the White House in 2008, they will work toward renewing dialogue with Syria.
The chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos, who accompanied Pelosi, said Assad should be given a final opportunity to disengage from the "axis of evil."
According to Lantos, in a few years, Sunni Muslims and not Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in control in the region, and it is to the advantage of Damascus to know which side to be on.
In a holiday interview with Haaretz, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also commented on the assessments of a possible "war in the summer."
"The Syrians, according to their statements and those of others recently," Olmert said, "appear to be saying that there is an American plan to attack Iran in the summer, and at the same time, and in coordination with Israel, to also attack Syria and Lebanon."
"I can tell you that there is no such plan that we know about, and in any case, there is no reason for the Syrians to prepare for such an eventuality. There is always concern that when one side prepares for war, and the other side is preparing to counter the other side's preparations, then the first side interprets the preparations of the other side as if it is the manifestation of its fears, and the situation goes into a spin, and control is lost.
"We have no intention to attack the Syrians," Olmert said, "we prefer to make peace with the Syrians, but it is a fact that the army is carrying out very intensive training in all systems, all branches, all units, in all areas, and it will continue doing so as part of its annual plans, and it will be ready for any eventuality - including the possibility of what is called miscalculation ... But we take into account everything, and hope that the things that should not happen, do not happen."
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 17, 2007 01:10:40 PM new
pelosi wants to make CONCESSIONS to the terrorists/terrorists supporters.
I don't believe most Americans would support that for one minute.
Spain made concessions and look where it's gotten them. Been reading what the AQ are NOW demanding that their gov. do?
Yep....lets let Iran get NW then they can tell the whole world what to support and what to do.
And it appears to me that WAY TOO many progressive liberals would be MORE THAN WILLING to go that route because they LACK the courage to take a stand AGAINST terrorists/terrorist nations.
==============
Apparently Pelosi believes:
a) that the terrorist-sponsoring Syrian regime is a nation of good will, whose leaders are reasonable and interested in resolving disputes through peaceful dialogue, and
b) that the U.S. policy of isolating Syria and refusing to negotiate with its leaders until it renounces its support of terrorism is wrong.
How is this different from the Pelosi liberals' position concerning endless "negotiations" with Saddam Hussein? To them, it didn't seem to matter that he had violated umpteen U.N. resolutions and was openly defying weapons inspectors. They always wanted to extend the time for diplomacy and defer the use of force.
Their mindset toward Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no different.
They believe he can be reasoned with and that his grievances can be addressed through jawboning.
We are the unreasonable ones, not Ahmadinejad, for refusing to engage in bilateral talks with him.
Underlying this liberal penchant for diplomacy at all costs is the assumption that these dictators have legitimate grievances against the United States, that they are prepared to negotiate in good faith and that they desire peace on other than their own nefarious terms.
But are they in good faith?
Neither the Bush administration nor the administration of Israel's Ehud Olmert believes so.
They say that as long as Syria is supporting and supplying our terrorist enemies in Iraq and in bed with Hamas and Hezbollah, there is no point in negotiating.
The Bush and Olmert administrations understand that a terrorist is a terrorist, and terrorists don't believe in true, give-and-take negotiations. Otherwise, they wouldn't be terrorists.
If Pelosi and her cohorts actually believe Syria has any shred of a legitimate moral basis to support flagrantly terrorist organizations, perhaps they could let us in on the secret.
Do they sympathize with Syrian President Bashar Assad's causes?
Do they believe one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter?
Or do they concede that Assad sponsors terrorism, but think he can be sweet-talked out of it?
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 17, 2007 04:56:15 PM newLOL.....you're so gullible it's unbelievable.
Anything that does not come from the FOX NEWS WEBSITE is wrong in Linda's eyes. Linda must have been in Syria when Pelosi gave the message. It was Linda that misheard what was said and lied to all the news stations
Linda can not handle the truth.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 19, 2007 11:06:07 AM new
AND to think it was our tax dollars that sent her on her fricken trip. She should be taken off as the Speaker of the House. She had no business going and putting her nose where it did not belong. When are women going to learn that politicks are not their thing.
Hillary
Polosi
Katherine Harris
Have all convinced me that they are too hormonal. Condie can't do a good job either.
