Well, that is all well and good. It should be continued.
I more meant that Ren was a perfect example of someone spouting off about stem cells without knowing/considering the nuances involved (I’ll give him credit, he at least had a pretty good grasp of the difference between ASCs and ESCs). Saying that stem cells currently have no clinical applications is patently wrong.
But that does not mean that embryonic reasearch has no purchase and should not be funded. Every potential avenue should be explored in treatment of disease relating to this area because there is no downside.
If you start by beleiving the hype, then ignore economic ideas like opportunity cost, risk/benefit ratio, and scarcity, I agree.
It would be different if there was any other use for embryos. But the embryos in question are not viable and cannot be used for anything. They will die anyhow. It’s only a matter of time. There is nothing to prevent that. How how is using embryos that are fated to dissapate for something useful ‘murder?’ If anything could be called murder it is invitro beause of the prospect, in fact the near certainty, that there are going to be embryos created that are fated to die.
You keep confusing me with someone who cares about unused embryos. I’m not saying that they have rights, etc. I’m saying Bush made the right decision for the wrong reasons the same way Clinton did. If it assuages some religious fundys, I can’t complain and I think others are wrong to rail against the decision for ‘anti-religious’ reasons.[/quote]
Fair enough. I think that there is enough potential to embryonic research that public funding is not a misuse of funds. If it doesn’t pan out after a time, the money could have been spent on much more fruitless avenues. Embryonic stem cell research is not so amorphous that it could not even be classified as pure research. But some of the most important discoveries and innovations have been the result of pure research and not directed research. I’m assuming you know the difference between the two.
[quote]Ren wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I more meant that Ren was a perfect example of someone spouting off about stem cells without knowing/considering the nuances involved (I’ll give him credit, he at least had a pretty good grasp of the difference between ASCs and ESCs). Saying that stem cells currently have no clinical applications is patently wrong.
I did add that second post talking about the blood related work that is having success.[/quote]
I interpreted ‘is having success’ and ‘in some cases’ to be more tenuous than ‘is currently used’ or ‘does cure’, IMO. Semantics I guess.
In the VC world, they solve this with due diligence. The Fed. Gov. is notoriously bad at this.
Agreed, and I gave you props as such. Out of curiosity, would you have a problem with a researcher taking an enucleated egg, inserting an adult cell’s nucleus and harvesting stem cells from the result? Or is that some sort of crime against nature?
Obviously there is a libertarian party but the way the voting method and laws are set up it makes it nearly impossible to have a viable third party candidate. We need to scrap this election method and adopt other means to enable the will of the people to become a reality.[/quote]
I knew someone was going to say something like this. Here in IL’s Gov. race, we had three parties on the list Blagojevich (D), Topinka (R), and Whitney (Green). Whitney runs pretty left of Blagojevich and managed to get 12% of the vote which means for the next election the Green Party has the exact same requirements as the big 2. If an extreme leftist can capture the ‘disenfranchised’ vote like this, I can only imagine that the libertarians (locally at least) are sitting on their thumbs.
But I agree with you, at the state level anyone ought to be able to put their name on the ballot without consideration of party (except maybe Nazis).
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
No, what’s really funny is that they are all doom and gloom and acting like little punk bitches just because their team lost. These are the same guys that gave the other side shit for doing the same thing when they lost a few years ago.
Bottom line is that no one knows what’s going to happen in the next few years and pissing and moaning about it doesn’t do a thing except show that you need to wear a skirt. Sac up already and prepare for battle![/quote]
That’s right. The Republicans have held out for months saying that the Republican voters were intimidated, that they were disenfranchised, demanding recounts, saying voter fraud was “widespread”, sending Union workers in to beat up Republican workers and slash the tires of their get-out-the-vote vans, demanding shares of leadership positions that they didn’t win, demanding that the dems consult on every decision with them, THREATENING TO FILIBUSTER ISSUES THEY COULDN’T WIN WITH A STRAIGHT VOTE, etc.
The Republicans have their problems, but they’re no where near as nasty and bitchlike as the dems. Where were the ridiculous left-wing organizations that have been on for the last three federal elections claiming widespread abuses, fraud, etc. when the dems lost?
rangel got on tv today and said that now that now that the dems were “in power”, the US would not support torturing and killing people any more. What a fucking piece of shit – this is the party leadership, I’ll remind you.
I can’t wait for the next few years, as the dems try to pretend they have a mandate with a razor-thin majority. I hope Bush sends them an Iraq-related budget addendum every week, so we can have a nice long trail of voting against troop funding by 2008.
The only way they will not sweep themselves back out of power is if the leadership actually tries to do something good for the country and proposes positive solutions. Given the party and congressional leadership, I put the odds of this at 0.0001. They can’t pass any legislature that the Republicans don’t want, as their party discipline is terrible, they don’t have much of a majority, and there’s no way they could ever override a veto.
So we’ll have two years of angling for the 2008 elections, and I’m certain that the dems will play politics with the troops. I hope Rudy’s coattails are long, and people will realize that protest votes can turn around and bite you in the ass.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
rangel got on tv today and said that now that now that the dems were “in power”, the US would not support torturing and killing people any more. What a fucking piece of shit – this is the party leadership, I’ll remind you.[/quote]
So you’re PRO-torture then? How sweet. Are you typing this from Iraq, or are you another right wing tough-talking pro-torture pussy? You wimps are only pro-torture because you’re SCARED TO DEATH of terrorists. You’re fucking cowards!!! The terrorists have already won against you, you fucking wimp. You’d trade in human rights in order to protect your chickenshit ass. YOU ARE A COWARD. Bush and Cheney’s policy of torturing prisoners is a national disgrace!!!
I have news for you, the Dems won re-election to EVERY single seat that was under contention. No Dems lost an existing seat to a Reublican, in 470-plus races nationwide… ZERO LOSSES. The Democrats swept the House, Senate and Governorships, and hundreds of local and state elections. The GOP lost referendums on abortion in South Dakota and on gay marriage in Arizona. You guys just got your asses kicked, even if you’re too stupid to realize it. The GOP is now relegated to controlling the South… that’s it. You’re no longer a dominant national party. 2008 is just going to be more of the same, not just with the presidential elections, but you can expect more losses in the House and Senate, as those seats come up for election.
Just shows how far your head is rammed up your own butt… “IF” the Democrats try to do something good? “IF”??? But thanks for correctly calling it what it was… A SWEEP. For weeks, the GOP tried to scare people about “Pelosi’s agenda” and that’s exactly what people voted FOR.
Oversight and accountability, I guess that’s what is really freaking the GOP out, huh? I bet that’s gonna suck.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
bigflamer, Don’t worry about Pelosi, shes still getting her direction from the exact same people who are so near and dear to your heart…
Pelosi’s support for Israel is heartfelt, supporters say
JTA
November 8, 2006
Political observers say it’s no surprise that the congresswoman from San Francisco considers herself close to the Jews.
The daughter of Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., a former mayor of Baltimore, Pelosi grew up in a Democratic family with Jewish neighbors and friends.
“She likes to say that, growing up in Baltimore, she went to a bar or bat mitzvah every Saturday,” Amy Friedkin, a former president of AIPAC and a friend of Pelosi’s for 25 years, wrote in an e-mail message to JTA.
Friedkin noted that there’s even a soccer field in the Haifa area of Israel named after the lawmaker’s family.
While the Republicans had campaigned partly on the premise that support for Israel among Democrats has waned, exit polls from Tuesday’s voting show that Democrats won an overwhelming majority of the Jewish vote.
With Pelosi as speaker, Jewish activists and officials are confident that the U.S. Congress will remain strongly pro-Israel.
You moan about us stopping those very things in Iraq, now moan about us not stopping same in Darfur. But, oh…, its about the oil…yeah…
You don’t give a shit about what’s happening in Darfur. I think you don’t even know where it is. You just want to attack moral people, because somehow it makes you feel moral. Here’s a clue: a negative isn’t a positive.
Asshunter,
Are you going to address the issue that I brought up or are you going to try to suggest that I’m someone who is pushing the sanctity of life argument in order to have my beliefs imposed on others?
The reasons for going into Iraq are very arguable, and were based on whipping up fear in the populace about WMD’s and ties to terrorism. Without those, it never would have happened.
Strangely, and it is something you always seem to miss, I am not against warfare, but it has to be entered into or approved by a willing and informed populace (their elected representatives). That’s the way it is supposed to work. Yes, I know it is arguable whether or not they were appropriately informed.
So, you are barking up the wrong tree with respect to Iraq. 1) That’s not why you went there… and I’ve never said it’s about the oil - not sure what fantasy world you got that from. 2) So called “moral people” do have to confront the hypocrisy of their position from time to time, it should really help them understand where there views are coming from.
As for yourself, you really seem to suffer a lot of misconceptions, make up a lot of shit, have comprehension issues and simply appear to be a nutbird with his head up his ass.
If you aren’t going to do anything but throw out useless attacks instead of actually thinking about the issues involved, maybe you could just spare us the hysteria? You sound like a panicked old lady.[/quote]
Vacuum,
I LOVE a nice ass on a woman. What kind of ass you like…ah, we can all guess.
The argument was about abortion for young teens and you turned it into an attack on us by changing it over to Darfur. Start another thread, 'cuum.
You never said where Darfur is. And no its not on some animal.
What’s scare about Stem-cell research is that it has not produced anything. And having the Government sink billions into something with no reasonable requirement for outcomes and no substantiated outcomes to date is very, very, very poor use of our money. But again, Dem’s never care where the money comes from, just that it doesn’t come from them.
Dems?
Idiot.
Bi-partisan.
Please,for the love of god.
Stop making s–t up.
[/quote]
You need to pull your head out Bro and read the paper, Dem’s do not support embryonic stem cell research. So it’s anything but bipartisan.
[quote]pookie wrote:
You yourself agree that the situation will impact mostly bad parents. Maybe the girl is afraid to talk to her bad parents about her bad situation; maybe getting a beating from her drunk dad is not what she wants.
Basically, it gives her the choice to talk to her parents about it, but the choice not to, if she feels it’s not in her best interest.
[/quote]
So let me get this straight, a 13yr girl has the right to make a serious decision like killing an unborn baby, but isn’t old enough to vote?
So we give these little girls the RIGHT to make a decision like this, but don’t think they are old enough to make a decision about who to vote for in the next election?
That doesn’t seem a little backwards to you?
The point is that teen age girls are not old enough to make these kinds of decisions and therefore should not be allowed to. And the obvious reason is that WE, the tax paying public, are usually the one’s who have to pay for these stupid little girls’ decisions.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
And now in California your 13-year-old daughter can go get an abortion without you even knowing about it. Aren’t the Dem’s great!
If your 13-years old daughter is out getting pregnant and aborted without your knowledge, you’re a fucking lousy parent.
But blaming someone else for your failures is so much easier, right?
I agree that this would only impact poor parents. But the issue is why anyone would not think it a good idea for a teenage girl to first talk with her parents before having any surgery? That is the issue. Why do dem’s want to remove parental rights? The right for a parent to just get a call from the clinic before an abortion is preformed. That seems very reasonable and very unreasonable that some people oppose that. It’s not about abortion, it’s about parental rights.
Not all parents are good parents. There is a real fear of abuse and beatings, etc…, with some of these parents. The same applies with adult women and their husbands. There’s also parents who would force the girl to have the baby.
[/quote]
Dude, this is a stupid ass argument!
So you are saying that we should put little girls and the public at risk because telling an abusive parent about a pregnancy might be a trigger that set’s them off?
How about we just deal with the abusive parent instead of trying to design an environment that never sets them off? The idea would be to fix (remove, jail, whatever) the offender instead of trying to placate their abusive tendencies.
So maybe we should remove all the triggers that might set an abuser off; bad report cards, not cleaning up their rooms, high phone bills, etc. Everything that might set them off.
I cannot believe the horseshit rationale Dem’s tell themselves to support an unsupportable position.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
You yourself agree that the situation will impact mostly bad parents. Maybe the girl is afraid to talk to her bad parents about her bad situation; maybe getting a beating from her drunk dad is not what she wants.
Basically, it gives her the choice to talk to her parents about it, but the choice not to, if she feels it’s not in her best interest.
So let me get this straight, a 13yr girl has the right to make a serious decision like killing an unborn baby, but isn’t old enough to vote?
So we give these little girls the RIGHT to make a decision like this, but don’t think they are old enough to make a decision about who to vote for in the next election?
That doesn’t seem a little backwards to you?
The point is that teen age girls are not old enough to make these kinds of decisions and therefore should not be allowed to. And the obvious reason is that WE, the tax paying public, are usually the one’s who have to pay for these stupid little girls’ decisions.
[/quote]
We also have to pay for the repercussions when her dumb hick parents force her to have the baby and she has a third generation baby whose a dumbass hick and will end up fucked and a drain on society from being raised by a 13 year-old whose parents were so grossly negligent in instilling values and parenting that their 13–year old daughter managed to have sex and get pregnant.
Not saying that their should be no parental consent. I’m not sure how I feel about that. But the parents are unlikely to be much better equipped to make any decisions like that. I posted before that I had thought there was a Supreme Court case [maybe Casey v. Planned Parenthood?] which ruled there can be a judicial determination that minors don’t have to get consent if the court determines that doing so puts them in danger. Otherwise they do.
There is a real danger in many cases that the child’s life would be in danger or she’d be in danger of serious bodily harm if forced to tell the parents. I think this is a good middle-ground.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So let me get this straight, a 13yr girl has the right to make a serious decision like killing an unborn baby, but isn’t old enough to vote?[/quote]
Well she was able to get pregnant, so she’s already having to deal with an adult situation anyway.
And you didn’t really address my point, which was that she’s not obligated to keep her parents in the dark about it, but she can if she feels it might be in her best interest.
Note that framing the debate in terms of a 13-years old is a nice tactic, but statistically, very few teen mothers are actually 13. Two thirds of teen pregnancies are from girls aged 18 and 19. Only about 5% of teenage pregnancies are from girls 14 or under.
So keep in mind that whatever is put in place will, in 95% of the cases, apply to a girl of 15 or more.
Since they are physically able to conceive at that age, we have to give them the right. Nature forces our hand, if you will. As for other age-restricted activities, like drinking, driving and voting, we are free to set whatever arbitrary limits society deems appropriate.
Not really. Preventing the whole situation would be ideal; but, like I said before: if a girl is getting pregnant at 13 (your contrived example); she’s obviously not enjoying the best parenting available. And again, she can choose to inform her parents; I simply think that if her parents have been shirking their parental duties, they shouldn’t be clamoring for parental rights.
Note that this decision will 19 times out of 20, fall on a girl at least 15 years of age. If you stop using a worst-case scenario to evaluate the whole thing, you might have a better perspective on the issue.
They shouldn’t be able to get pregnant either, but there’s not much we can do about that, is there? Why compound the problem for the girl. Why take another choice away from her?
You’re assuming that all these girls are getting pregnant voluntarily and then using abortion as a mean of birth control. The statistics don’t bear out that conclusion.
In any case, whether her parents are informed of it, or not, don’t you still end up footing the bill?
Also, if you consider the price of an abortion, vs. the price of placing a child in foster services for life, it takes a lot less to abort than to birth. I don’t really care for that argument, but since “your dollars” seem to be the most important factor for you…
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So you are saying that we should put little girls and the public at risk because telling an abusive parent about a pregnancy might be a trigger that set’s them off?[/quote]
First, how is the public and the girl being put at risk?
Second, the girl probably already knows how her parents are going to react. If she thinks she’s going to get beaten or abused, she won’t go to a clinic to get her abortion. She’ll find an illegal one, or try to do it herself. She might die from hemorraging in a back alley (which, of course, would save some of your precious dollars); or she might require an hospital stay to recover from an infection (not so good for your wallet). Either way, you end up making a difficult situation even harder for her.
Why must you always push any reasoning to the extreme? No one is proposing to “design an environment” suited to abusers.
Also, I’d like to know your secret for dealing with abusive parents. How do you find them? How do you investigate them? Who prosecutes them? Who takes the children under care? Social services? Who pays for the whole process?
Can’t wait to hear about your revolutionary method to accomplish that.
If you’re going to berate someone for making “dumb ass arguments”, you probably should refrain from making them yourself.
It’s quite supportable. In fact, it’s your view that seems callous and self-serving.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So you are saying that we should put little girls and the public at risk because telling an abusive parent about a pregnancy might be a trigger that set’s them off?
First, how is the public and the girl being put at risk?
Second, the girl probably already knows how her parents are going to react. If she thinks she’s going to get beaten or abused, she won’t go to a clinic to get her abortion. She’ll find an illegal one, or try to do it herself. She might die from hemorraging in a back alley (which, of course, would save some of your precious dollars); or she might require an hospital stay to recover from an infection (not so good for your wallet). Either way, you end up making a difficult situation even harder for her.
How about we just deal with the abusive parent instead of trying to design an environment that never sets them off?
Why must you always push any reasoning to the extreme? No one is proposing to “design an environment” suited to abusers.
Also, I’d like to know your secret for dealing with abusive parents. How do you find them? How do you investigate them? Who prosecutes them? Who takes the children under care? Social services? Who pays for the whole process?
The idea would be to fix (remove, jail, whatever) the offender instead of trying to placate their abusive tendencies.
Can’t wait to hear about your revolutionary method to accomplish that.
So maybe we should remove all the triggers that might set an abuser off; bad report cards, not cleaning up their rooms, high phone bills, etc. Everything that might set them off.
If you’re going to berate someone for making “dumb ass arguments”, you probably should refrain from making them yourself.
I cannot believe the horseshit rationale Dem’s tell themselves to support an unsupportable position.
It’s quite supportable. In fact, it’s your view that seems callous and self-serving.
[/quote]
For arguments sake lets assume that we are talking about a 15yr old. Regardless of nature, modern developed society has placed certain limitations on people due to age. So we don’t run around and do whatever is capable according to nature. So just because I could grab most any girl walking by and force her to have sex (which would be what “nature” would indicate), I don’t because of the laws to prevent that.
So saying nature gives the girl the ability to get pregnant, so she therefore has the ability to make mature choices is not rational, because having the physical ability doesn’t mean you have the mental ability to manage that ability.
As for the abuser issue, you are assuming that a teen will be choosing not to notify the parents based on actual physical abuse. But, since in most other areas, it would be understood that teens do not make good choices, we could also conclude that she would/could not notify her parents for a number of reasons unrelated to potential abuse.
Making a law designed as if abuse is the rule rather than the exception (which is exactly what a law designed to give a teen the option based on potential abuse does) is statistically inaccurately and inappropriate.
Also, stating that parents can’t make good choices is irrelevant. Society has determined that once a person gets to be an adult that they can make their own choices no matter how stupid they are.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Second, the girl probably already knows how her parents are going to react. If she thinks she’s going to get beaten or abused, she won’t go to a clinic to get her abortion. She’ll find an illegal one, or try to do it herself. She might die from hemorraging in a back alley (which, of course, would save some of your precious dollars); or she might require an hospital stay to recover from an infection (not so good for your wallet). Either way, you end up making a difficult situation even harder for her.
[/quote]
Pookie,
I don’t think it’s good policy to suppose and what if all of the preconceived scenarios w/r/t underage abortions. IMHO, it’s better policy to support the rights of parents to parent. This can’t be done when children under the legal care of their parents are now legally able to circumvent their parents authority via state or federal law. This is directly undermining parents rights. I think laws that allow underage girls to seek out their own abortions will contribute to the nanny state mentality.
We should deal with bad, abusive parents when those situations arise on a case to case basis.
Call it what you will – its right there in front of you.
Number of Jewish lawmakers worldwide reaches record high
Haaretz
November 14, 2006
Tuesday’s U.S. elections brought the number of Jewish parliamentarians worldwide to an all-time high, according to the International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785642.html
Pelosi’s Israel Connection
Jewish Times
NOVEMBER 10, 2006
“As far as the Jewish community is concerned, she feels our issues in her soul,” he said. To illustrate his point, Lauter told a Pelosi story that has become almost legendary in the Jewish community.
At an AIPAC members luncheon in San Francisco right after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Pelosi was speaking when an alarm sounded.
“Everybody started getting nervous, scrambling toward the door,” Lauter recalled. One person, though, was reading the words of Hatikvah, the Israeli national anthem, above the din. It was Pelosi.
[PUUUUKE]
When it comes to Israel, “she truly gets it,” said Matt Dorf, a consultant to the Democratic National Committee. She gets “Israel’s value and asset to U.S. security” and its “importance as the only democracy in the Middle East.”
He also noted that Reva Price, Pelosi’s liaison to the Jewish community for a year and a half, came from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella group of local community relations councils. Bringing on board such an insider was “really a masterful stroke,” Daroff said.
Price, he added, has done a wonderful job of playing “traffic cop” with Jewish organizations and in making sure that Pelosi’s agenda is in tune with that of the Jewish community.
She’s been “a real champion of making sure the Jewish community is well served,” Daroff said of the lawmaker. “I’m sure she’ll continue to be a champion.” http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/6073.stm
How bout even more over-the-top ‘cuckoo for Israel’ from Katherine Harris…
Florida’s Katherine Harris Continues Her Senate Race, Shedding Staff Along the Way
During an interview in the livestock arena, amid the ghosts of her cousins’ cows, Harris talks about two of her greatest passions: art and Israel…
After Harris’s quote about the importance of electing Christians was published in a Baptist publication, her campaign went into damage control, issuing a press release discussing Harris’s love for Israel and explaining that while she was speaking to a Christian audience, she really meant that “people of faith” should be involved in government.
Harris does love talking about Israel. She’s proud that Israelis sometimes assume she’s one of them and talk to her in Hebrew. She is a Christian but has called herself a “wannabe” Jew. During the bitterly contested recount in 2000, which she oversaw as Florida’s secretary of state, she compared herself to the Biblical character Queen Esther, who risked her life to save the Jews.
To Israel with love
The Economist
Aug 3rd 2006
Indeed, the parties are engaged in a competition to see who can be the most pro-Israeli.
Indeed.
Senator Israel
National Review
May 25, 2005
Watching Hillary Clinton’s speech at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference on Tuesday was a chance to observe a political master in action. In her usual stone-faced way, the senator set out to present herself as a stalwart supporter of Israel and of America’s alliance with Israel - and judging by the audience’s reaction, she succeeded brilliantly… http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/friedman200505251257.asp
Its time everyone woke up and demanded our politicians concentrated 100% on AMERICA for a change.
You can call it a Jewish conspiracy if you want – it sure as FUCK isn’t normal.
It’s called pandering. I could throw together a bunch of articles with a common theme, pandering to a group. Be it christian, jew, homosexuals, whites, blacks, hispanics, women, poor, rich, socialists, capitalist, etc.
Betcha I could come up with an “Irish Conspiracy.” An “African conspiracy.” Or, a “Hispanic conspiracy.” Maybe a “Female Conspiracy?”
I can’t stand Pelosi, but come on…
Flat out, do you believe the “zionists” were behind 9-11? The answer to that will tell me all I need to know. That is, if you answer the way I’m guessing you will.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s called pandering. I could throw together a bunch of articles with a common theme, pandering to a group. Be it christian, jew, homosexuals, whites, blacks, hispanics, women, poor, rich, socialists, capitalist, etc.
Betcha I could come up with an “Irish Conspiracy.” An “African conspiracy.” Or, a “Hispanic conspiracy.” Maybe a “Female Conspiracy?”
I can’t stand Pelosi, but come on…[/quote]
If your conspiracy is anything like this I’d love to hear it.
FBI Probes Jewish Sway on Bush Government
Haaretz
05 September 2004
WASHINGTON - The FBI investigation into the Pentagon mole affair has expanded beyond data analyst Larry Franklin’s immediate circle to encompass the entire issue of Jewish influence on the neoconservative part of the administration.
The officials include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Pentagon adviser Richard Perle; adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, David Wormser; and Iran specialist Harold Rhode, all of them Jews.
The Washington Post reported that FBI people recently spoke to administration officials and Middle East experts to sound them out on the suspicion that senior officials funneled secret material to Israel. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/30/6124
Defense Analyst Guilty in Israeli Espionage Case
Washington Post
October 6, 2005
A Defense Department analyst pleaded guilty yesterday to passing government secrets to two employees of a pro-Israel lobbying group and revealed for the first time that he also gave classified information directly to an Israeli government official in Washington.
Report: FBI In Expanded Aipac Probe
Forward
Oct 27, 2006
Washington insiders are downplaying the likelihood that an investigation regarding Harman and Aipac would lead to any formal charges of wrongdoing. But the allegations - along with the upcoming trial of Rosen and Weissman, and the recent book deal signed by two of the pro-Israel lobby’s most prominent and vocal critics, scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer - are likely to trigger increased media and public scrutiny of the pro-Israel lobby’s efforts to influence the decision-making process in Washington. http://www.forward.com/articles/report-fbi-in-expanded-aipac-probe/
Feds Probe a Top Democrat’s Relationship with AIPAC
TIME
Oct. 20, 2006
Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment?
That’s the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government.
The sources tell TIME that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has simmered out of sight since about the middle of last year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman’s behalf…
The case is a spin-off of a probe that has already led to charges under the Espionage Act against two AIPAC lobbyists, whose case is still pending, and to a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence for former Defense Intelligence Agency official Lawrence A. Franklin… http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1549069,00.html
More conclusive proof its ALL about Israel, all the time…
Hoyer wins leadership
JTA
11/17/06
U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), one of the pro-Israel community’s closest friends in the U.S. House of Representatives, was elected majority leader…
Hoyer has made a point of promoting bipartisan support of Israel, has urged freshmen lawmakers to join the numerous congressional delegations to Israel he has led, and has isolated Democrats who have been strongly critical of the Jewish state.
Allies and espionage
Jane’s Defence
13 March 2002
It is rather strange that the US media seems to be ignoring what may well be the most explosive story since the 11 September attacks - the alleged break-up of a major Israeli espionage operation in the USA… http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid020313_1_n.shtml
U.S. Police and Intelligence Hit by Spy Network
NewsMax
Dec. 19, 2001
In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, the FBI has stumbled on the largest espionage ring ever discovered inside the United States. The U.S. Justice Department is now holding nearly 100 Israeli citizens with direct ties to foreign military, criminal and intelligence services.
The spy ring reportedly includes employees of two Israeli-owned companies that currently perform almost all the official wiretaps for U.S. local, state and federal law enforcement.
The U.S. law enforcement wiretaps, authorized by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), appear to have been breached by organized crime units working inside Israel and the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad…
Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001
Sunday Herald
02 November 2003
THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.
Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis - and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.
For the MSM to COMPLETELY IGNORE any news about Israel that doesn’t portray them as anything other than peaceful, hapless victims, of crazy Jew hating Islamic jihadists, tells me everything I need to know.