The New York Times outed a CIA agent who interrogated the mastermind of the (/11/01 Twin Towers attack. This despite the repeated pleas not to use Mr. Deuce Martinez's name in their article. This is the man who used psychology tricks to interrogate Khalid Shaik Mohammed, not water boarding or other "torture" methods as the Times has referred to in the past.
This man himself asked the Times editors not to use his name in the article, and so did numerous CIA officials, but to no avail! Now this man's life and that of his family is in jeopardy, but not to worry! The time editors published a statement that essentially said they needed his name to corroborate the story. They added insult to injury by writing that Al Qaeda poses no threat to individual Americans here in the USA.
I guess when it suits their political and philosophical mind set they use the old bromide, source confidentiality, as was done in the Valerie Plame debacle.
What should be apparent to anyone but a Marxist leaning liberal is that the New York Times, and their equally leftist co-conspirator in Washington, The Washington Post only print what the leftist pseudo-intellectuals want to read. Bad news for anyone in the military, CIA, FBI or Bush administration.
They are careful not to out the "empty suit" running for the Presidency, Obama.
They carefully print story's of his shift to the center. He has a long way to go to run from his leftist record, but they will spend every inch of ink to try to con the American people that Obama is a centrist.
They do not print story's that illustrate that Obama's positions on such important issues is contrary to the majority of Americans, as this list shows.
Obama opposes offshore drilling for oil. Voters support drilling by 67% to 18%. (Rasmussen, June 2008).
Obama supports giving driver licenses to illegal immigrants. Americans oppose this 76% to 23%. (CNN/ Opinion Research, Oct. 2007)
Obama supports affirmative action in public employment, contracting and university admissions. Americans oppose giving an advantage in these areas on the basis of race by a margin of 82% to 14%. (Newsweek, July 2007)
Obama says that he will cut funding for research and development of missile defense systems. 89% of Americans support development of or research for missile defense -- 8% don't. (Program on International Policy Alternatives, March 2004) It's worth noting that Obama's closer to a pre-9/11 view of missile defense. An August 2001 Bloomberg News poll showed only 49% favored missile defense at that time whereas 41% opposed it.
Obama voted against a ban on partial birth abortions. Americans support a ban by a margin of 66% to 28%. (CNN/Opinion Research, May 2007)
Despite his equivocal statements regarding the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, Obama has never met a gun ban he didn't like. Although many Americans support certain types of restrictions on guns, they oppose broad bans by a margin of 68% to 30%. In fact, 58% insist no new gun laws should be passed.(Gallup, Oct. 2007)
Obama opposed the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act while in the Illinois state legislature. The measure is designed to prevent abortion providers from withholding medical care and sustenance from infants born after surviving an abortion attempt. There's no national polling data on this state issue, but when the Senate voted on a analogous piece of legislation -- the Born Alive Infant Protection Act -- the measure passed unanimously.
Obama voted against a bill that would make English the official language for conducting business with the U.S. government. Americans support making English the official language 85% to 11%, including 79% of Democrats. (Rasmussen, July 2006)
While in the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted against parental notification requirements for abortions for minors. Americans support parental notification laws by a margin of 79% to 17%. Even 64% of those identifying themselves as pro-choice support such laws. (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, April 2005)
Obama maintains that the Supreme Court's recent decisions prohibiting the use of race in determining public school assignments are wrong. In contrast, 71% of American agree with the decisions and only 24% disagree. (Quinnipiac, July 2007)
A good title for an article about Obama would be the Chameleon changes color again, color being a euphemism for positions!
Posts
3 comments:
Whoever owns this blog, I would like to say that he has a great idea of choosing a topic.
The exclamation point at the end of the death wish is that now there is yet another
candidate for the office of president of the United States who has in an extraordinary way
done everything possible to breathe life into all of the barbaric elements of the death
wish. He and his party make no apologies for their support of abortion, partial-birth
abortion, and even infanticide. It’s hard to believe that we have degenerated to the point
that we’ll murder a helpless baby should it escape the violence of an abortion and be born
alive. Can a Catholic vote for such persons? We are told, “yes” for a “proportionate
reason.” What, I might ask, is the proportionate reason so weighty as to excuse
supporting those responsible for what is tantamount to genocide?
The judges and politicians that support such barbaric practices are truly guilty of
genocide: genocide—the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial,
religious, national, or social group. “What is the group so targeted?” you might ask. The
group is unwanted, unborn children--tens of millions of them.
The Supreme Court justices that gave us Roe v. Wade will have to plead temporary
insanity in the court of history. There will be no defense in the highest Court that is the
judgment seat of almighty God if they do not repent of the incalculable evil they have
wrought.
The exclamation point at the end of the death wish is that now there is yet another
candidate for the office of president of the United States who has in an extraordinary way
done everything possible to breathe life into all of the barbaric elements of the death
wish. He and his party make no apologies for their support of abortion, partial-birth
abortion, and even infanticide. It’s hard to believe that we have degenerated to the point
that we’ll murder a helpless baby should it escape the violence of an abortion and be born
alive. Can a Catholic vote for such persons? We are told, “yes” for a “proportionate
reason.” What, I might ask, is the proportionate reason so weighty as to excuse
supporting those responsible for what is tantamount to genocide?
The judges and politicians that support such barbaric practices are truly guilty of
genocide: genocide—the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial,
religious, national, or social group. “What is the group so targeted?” you might ask. The
group is unwanted, unborn children--tens of millions of them.
The Supreme Court justices that gave us Roe v. Wade will have to plead temporary
insanity in the court of history. There will be no defense in the highest Court that is the
judgment seat of almighty God if they do not repent of the incalculable evil they have
wrought.
Post a Comment