NY Times and treason

The New York Times, along with most in the elite media, led the charge to have someone (preferably Karl Rove!) indicted for “outing” Valerie Plame, claiming the “outing” endangered our national security. The “Times” later, thanks to a leak, printed classified information concerning our “rendition” program that authorizes sending terrorist suspects to friendly foreign countries for incarceration, and interrogation. Even worse, the “Times”, based on yet another leak, made public classified information concerning warrantless domestic eavesdropping on U.S. based international phone calls and e-mails. These actions have apparently prevented at least one potential terrorist attack on the Brooklyn Bridge. So much for the “Times” concern for our security, or their disdain for leakers!

In the Plame case, a two-year investigation by a special prosecutor discovered there was no “outing”, because Plame did not meet the requirements of having been overseas in a covert position within the past five years, and that the source was aware of her status, and still leaked her name. Even more damaging to the charges were statements made in October of 2003 by NBC news reporter Andrea Mitchell that it was well know among many reporters that Plame was with the CIA. I don’t recall the “Times” reporting that fact. In any event, the “Times” has not yet explained how releasing the name of someone in a desk job at CIA headquarters endangered our security. Nevertheless, the “Times” would not let the story die, as they endlessly conjectured that Karl Rove would (hopefully!) be indicted. The “Times” subsequently “outed” two classified, terrorism-fighting programs that could well endanger our security. It appears that the main objective of the “Times” is to destroy the Bush Administration, and if that means supplying classified information to our enemy, so be it. So much for the “Times” concern for our security

Why is the “Times” absolutist when it comes to insisting they have the “right” to aid our enemies, but has a very different view of free speech when it comes to a valedictorian wishing to utter a prayer at a graduation ceremony? The “Times” while insisting the First Amendment gives them the right to print distortions, half-truths, and outright lies, when on numerous occasions they altered, or even attributed quotes to people who never said what the “Time” quoted them as having said. Yet, the “Times” routinely suggests there is a “wall of separation” between church and state that prohibits any prayer by any student at any graduation ceremony. This phantom wall illegally prohibits Nativity scenes on public property, or saying the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, or permitting school to have the word “Christmas” on school calendars. Apparently to some, calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tee is establishing a religion!

From where did this phantom, “wall of separation” term emanate? Yes, Thomas Jefferson used the term in a private letter to a Baptist Congregation in Connecticut. It had nothing to do with government policy or the Constitution. In fact, the very next day Jefferson attended church services in the House chamber, as he did until his term ended. More than 150 years later in 1947, Justice Hugo Black, a former KKK member who hated Catholics, put this misused term in a Supreme Court opinion that he authored. The case concerned the reimbursement of bus fares, from public funds, to Parochial School students. Today the “Times” and their ideological allies have rewritten history to make us believe that the Framers used this meaningless term to construct some illusory “wall” between church and state. First Amendment prohibits government interference in the “right” to practice one’s religion, not the practice of religion. The “Times” and other secularists have twisted a simple document into something it was never meant to be. Perhaps it is time to revisit the absolutism of the First Amendment to bring it up to date. After all, we’re routinely told that the Constitution is a “living” document.

Tony Moschetti
High Point, NC

December 28, 2005

Wal-Mart drives the liberals crazy

Readers comment on Wal-Mart

On Dec. 18, in connection with an opinion piece arguing that Wal-Mart helps, not harms, the poor, we asked readers their opinion of the world's largest retailer. Here's what some had to say:

Wal-Mart drives the liberals crazy

Of course I shop at Wal-Mart. Why? Primarily because Wal-Mart drives the liberals crazy, as do most things that are good for the majority of mainstream Americans. Sebastian Mallaby's article detailed the billions in savings provided to lower income workers. The primary Wal-Mart antagonists are the archaic, greed-driven labor unions, which drive up the cost of everything in our society, making many items unaffordable for many.

Wal-Mart is killing unionized grocery stores where shoppers pay ridiculous prices for the necessities of life because of the greed of labor unions. Are cashiers worth $30,000-$40,000 per year, as they were getting in the union stores until Wal-Mart showed up?

The entire airline industry (what's left of it) is in bankruptcy or on the verge because of the greedy unions continually wanting more, while producing less. The auto industry is close behind, with the major cause being union contracts calling for lifetime benefits whether or not the companies are profitable. New York transit workers, with incomes of $50,000 to $75,000, were striking during this busy Christmas season for even more. They couldn't care less about the havoc they created.

We need Wal-Mart Air or Wal-Mart Transit! Then watch the unions scream.

Tony Moschetti
High Point

News & Record
December 25, 2005

Democratic senators' protests unbelievable

If this were 1943 (World War II) most of the Democrats in the Senate would be indicted for treason. Jane Fonda became one of the most reviled persons in America because of her support for our enemy.

Today, we unbelievably have U.S. senators doing their best to aid our current enemy, Muslim terrorists. Forget that every prominent Democrat now attacking the president for "lying" said exactly the same things about Saddam, and Jay Rockefeller in 2002 called him an "imminent" threat. Rockefeller lied. Clinton lied. Kennedy lied. Kerry lied. Levin lied. But hey, that's OK, they're Democrats, and that's what Democrats do, protected by their lapdogs in the elite media.

Now, they're obsessed with torture. Shouldn't we be able to do to terrorists what the Clinton administration did to Americans, including innocent women and children at Waco? Democratic senators were not outraged at the deaths of approximately 90 people there. I guess ramming tanks into the home of oddball Christians, or murdering Randy Weaver's wife as she stood holding her young child, is fine with them, but they draw the line at harassing terrorists with chained dogs.

Tony Moschetti
High Point

News & Record
December 1, 2005