MyFox
 

jfore's Blog

by jfore

Last Post 1 day, 9 hours Ago


Have any of you ever heard of Imad Mughniyeh (pronounced Mug-ny-uh). Don’t feel bad. Most Americans have never heard of him. So let me take a moment and tell you a little bit about him.

Mughniyeh was born in southern Lebanon in 1962. He joined up with Yasser Arafat’s group at the age of 17 and became a master terrorist. He went on to be one of the founding members of Hezbollah and a high ranking official in the group.

.

He is responsible for the kidnapping and murder of many people who opposed Hezbollah. But here are a few of the highlights of his career.

.

On April 19, 1983 he masterminded the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon that killed 60 people.

.

On October 23, 1983 he masterminded the bombings of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon that killed 360 people, 240 of them Americans.

.

In 1985 he planned the hijacking of a TWA airliner.

.

In 1985 he was behind the kidnapping and execution of William Buckley, the CIA section chief in Beirut.

.

In 1986 he kidnapped British journalist John McCarthy and held him captive for over 5 years.

.

In 1987 he was behind the kidnapping of the Church of England’s emissary, Terry Waite, and did not release him until 1991. Waite was in Lebanon trying to negotiate the release of four hostages being held by Hezbollah at the time. John McCarthy was among them.

.

On March 3, 1992 he was behind the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina leaving 29 dead.

.

On July 18, 1994 he planned the bombing of the Israeli Mutual Bank in Buenos Aires killing 85.

.

Well, needless to say, the FBI and the Israeli Mossad have been trying to find this guy for years. He was finally killed on February 12th of this year in a car bombing in Syria. Of course Hezbollah immediately blamed Israel for his death. But Israel says that they had nothing to do with it. The U.S. also denies any involvement. The U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, suggested that he was killed by internal Hezbollah factions or the Syrian government.

.

So what does this have to do with you and me. Simple, Hezbollah has vowed to take revenge on Israel and the United States for the killing. So the Homeland Security Agency issued an alert to step up surveillance of people with known ties to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

.

But here’s the problem. In the face of this threat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to unilaterally disarm the United States in its War on Terror. The Protect America Act is the legislation that allowed us to monitor terrorist communications overseas without having to go to the FISA Court for a warrant. You see, getting a warrant takes a lot of time, and by the time the warrant was secured the conversation was over. Take note that this only allowed monitoring of foreigner to foreigner communications. Surveillance within the United States still requires a warrant.

.

Our Democrat controlled Congress has known for the last 6 months that that bill was going to expire at midnight Saturday night, February 16th . But they did nothing.

.

Well, the Senate scrambled at the last minute and passed a bill by an overwhelmingly bi-partisan majority that would extend the Protect America Act. But, the Democrat leadership in the House, led by Nancy Pelosi, refused to let the bill come up for a vote. Instead, she adjourned the House until after the Easter vacation leaving this country vulnerable to attack. The Republican members of the House, led by Representative Dick Boehner of Ohio, actually walked out of the session. Boehner said, "We will not stand idly by and watch the floor of the United States House of Representatives be abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of national security."

.

Well, why do you suppose Nancy Pelosi was willing to put the American people in such danger by unilaterally disarming us in the War on Terror? TRIAL LAWYERS, that’s why. It’s not that the bill didn’t have bi-partisan support in the House, because it did. But the trial lawyers didn’t like it.

.

You see, that bill also included a provision that would grant immunity from lawsuits to any telecommunication company that cooperated with the government in the War on Terror. But the trial lawyers have already filed dozens of lawsuits demanding millions of dollars in damages against phone companies that helped keep us safe by cooperating with National Security officials when they requested information about communications between suspected overseas terrorists.

.

Well, this put Nancy Pelosi firmly between the proverbial rock and a hard spot. If she allowed the vote to happen her fellow Democrats would be forced to go on record as favoring the trial lawyers over the safety of the American people by voting against the bill. This would keep one of their biggest contributors, the trial lawyer lobby, happy by allowing their lawsuits to go on. Lawsuits against companies that were simply helping to keep us safe. But it would put the Democrats on record as being weak on National Defense. They ARE weak on National defense. But this is a presidential election year and she can’t afford to give the Republicans evidence that proves it.

.

So her solution was to place every American citizen at risk by simply refusing to allow the vote and unilaterally disarming America in the War on Terror. The bill has expired; there is a known threat out there; and we no longer have one of our most vital tools in preventing terrorist attacks in America. And we have Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat cronies who chose to side with the trial lawyers and go on vacation to thank for that.

.

House Democrat Caucus Chairman, Rom Emanuel of Illinois came right out and said what this was about when he attacked the President’s support for the bill. He said, "This is not about protecting Americans. The President just wants to protect American telephone companies." Sorry Mr. Emanuel, it is about protecting Americans, not the trial lawyers’ lawsuits against phone companies.

.

So as of midnight last Saturday America is at risk because our intelligence people can no longer monitor conversations between a terrorist in Afghanistan and a terrorist in Iran without going through a very lengthy bureaucratic process. But the trial lawyers are happy. And the Democrats in the House got to go on vacation without having to take a stand in favor of National Defense.

.

Isn’t it comforting to know that the Democrat controlled House of Representatives thinks more of about protecting contributions coming from trial lawyers than they do about protecting you. Well, now you know where you stand in the mind of Democrats. You finish second whenever campaign contributions are waved under their noses. When it comes to protecting money or you, you might as well kiss your bacon goodbye. To them, when it comes to choosing between special interests and the American people, the American people are expendable. Your safety is secondary to their political goals. But remember, you were warned. But you voted for them anyway.

52 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 52
Page 1 of 3
1
Last
FloydFreak read my blog view my photos
Feb 20, 2008 | 9:36 PM

Great post, jfore.

Do me a favor, please...could you go over to the Tampa Bay site and post this there as well?

Keep the faith!

And, oh by the way, in addition to being a threat to our nation's security, Nancy Pelosi is a slut.

myboblue read my blog
Feb 20, 2008 | 10:08 PM

YES!! PLEASE forward this to the tampafox..it's hillarious how we present facts to the dems and they still come up w/ some BS they've heard from someone in Hollywood..lol!! (they think propaganda and facts are one in the same)

KISSHANK read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 4:54 AM

oh please you republicans are grabbing at anything you can..you all know that in November the democrats will not only win the white house but we will finally get a stronger hold on COngress as well..YOu republicans days are numbered..Its funny to see the rats scrambling.... What you didnt mention was the mounting telephone bills that all our evesdropping was costing us.Mountains upon mountains of past due phone bills..So the various telecommunications companies literally disconnected us..Plain and simple..This has nothing to do with the Democrats.. we are so much in debt that we cant even pay our phone bills anymore...George W ..what a pathetic little man he is..Thank god is reign of terror and mayhem is almost over

FloydFreak read my blog view my photos
Feb 21, 2008 | 5:33 AM

Blah, blah, blah.

Get used to the neocons, KISSHANK. You're not going to be able to stop it.

Now...please enlighten me: Exactly WTF are you talking about with regard to phone bills?

Your rant makes it sound like telecommunications costs are bankrupting us. Granted, spending is out of control - that's one of my issues with the Bush administration. But you have to also thank Nancy and your dem Congress for that. Just WHO owes all of these past due phone bills? Show me some figures.

FloydFreak read my blog view my photos
Feb 21, 2008 | 5:34 AM

W-T-F gets you a "BLEEP"

jfore read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 6:57 AM

KISSHANK
Talk about funny. Democrats are always screaming about the national debt, as you just did, yet they keep cramming billions of dollars of special interest earmarks into every bill they pass and are supporting candidates whose proposals already exceed $875 billion a year. Do I note a bit of hypocrisy here?

jfore read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 7:05 AM

FloydFreak: Please feel free to cut and paste this into your own blog in Tampa with my blessings.

myboblue read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 8:51 AM

kisshank, it's sort of difficult trying to debate with a feeble minded,deficient, person such as yourself. we will just allow you to grasp at straws and believe what you are told, it's the mentally challenged way....If you want to play with the big boys, First you should get yourself "hooked on phonics" not ebonics, and then, make sure you get FACTS straight, propaganda and facts are two different things. Facts are not what you get from TMZ, THE Enquirer, etc..hope this helped. Now put your helmut on play with your kind.

zbert read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 9:18 AM

Kisshank, myboblue is right. It is difficult to debate with th feeble minded who don't bother to research what they are talking about. Dittoheads are the worst. They hang on every word of their masters.
FACT: the FISC is owned and operated by the White House.
FACT: since its inception, the FISC has refused THREE requests for warrants.
FACT: the person being investigated can challenge it, but since all of the information is secret, that challenge is impossible. Whether you are guilty or innocent, you are guilty.
FACT: the person being investigated is not allowed to tell anyone he is being investigated, so he can't get legal help.
How is this legal?

zbert read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 9:21 AM

The correct name for the PAA is the FISA Ammendment Act.
All it does is make the FISC unnecessary except if they want to use the information.

I remember complaints about the USSR using these tactics. Why are you willing to have it here? Are you that afraid?

zbert read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 9:26 AM

"Now...please enlighten me: Exactly BLEEP are you talking about with regard to phone bills?"

FloydFreak, that one is simple.
The telecommunications companies are required by law to maintain equipment for the government to use to listen as well as sniffer programs to watch your web use.
Then the US government doesn't pay their bills on time.
Who do you think pays for that?

zbert read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 9:34 AM

jfore, do you know the difference between earmarks and pork?
Earmarks tell the government agency exactly how to spend the budget they are given.
When money iss allocated to repair a bridge that is falling down, that is an earmark. They are good things. Otherwise, the agency can spend it however they want.
The Federal Budget should be ALL earmarked, but that would mean the congress would have to work.

zbert read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 9:45 AM

Here's a history lesson to educate you geniuses.
All the communications going from New Elgland and New York went through the WTC. After the 1993 attack, all communications were cut off.
After that, the companies tried to get permission to open different paths. The DOJ objected because they would lose their centralized listening post.
Right now, All communications in the US goes through TWO points. This is required by the DOJ. This info is not secret and the locations are not secret.
If there was no redundancy built into the system, the economy of the US would have crashed, but the DOJ and the FCC needed to give permission to use it.

myboblue read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 10:34 AM

it's actually called the 'protect america act' it was passed in 2007 and it's sponsored by the fisa act. it allows surveillance of suspected terrorists in or outside the US.the phone calls begin or end in a forign country, what the he^&? why are you so worried killshank? give me a break, if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. I can guarantee you that the government isn't listening in on your conversations about britney spears..they don't have the time and you really need to get the facts and quit listening to your school yard friends. (he's worried about phone bills...lol!!)

zbert, there are several meanings to "earmarks" one is what you stated (political earmark), the another is tax on a public expenditure such as a car, cigs (public finance earmark), etc..
"pork barrell" or "pork projects" is gov spending that benefits the constituents of a politician in return for their political support via campaign contributions or votes

myboblue read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 10:38 AM

another, not the another..geez,this is what happens when i type too fast..lol!!

zbert read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 10:58 AM

WRONG on both counts.
Protect America Act is what they are calling it so fools like you will think it's a good thing. Look it up in Thomas.
It also has nothing to do with foreign to foreign communications. It is within the US only. Read it. The Attorney General can issue an order in an emergency and get a warrant later. READ!
I doubt the government is listening to any of us, but they are allowed to, so it is possible. If someone in your neighborhood is a suspected terrorist, they can put traps on all phones, including yours in case the "terrorist" uses your phone.

zbert read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 11:05 AM

This definition is from the OMB website:
Earmarks Include:
Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark.
Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding.

zbert read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 11:09 AM

Earmarks are restrictions on spending.
Pork is spending that only benefits a small amount of people like lobbyists and their employees.
McCain doesn't put earmarks on bills, but he sponsors a lot of pork barrel bills.

myboblue read my blog
Feb 21, 2008 | 12:38 PM

uh...ok, chang, uh, i mean uh zbert, whatever you say...lol!!

jfore read my blog
Feb 22, 2008 | 10:13 AM

Let me take a few minutes to clear up a few misunderstandings here.

FACT: the FISC is owned and operated by the White House.

That is just a biased opinion that has no basis in fact. The FACT is, the Court is made up of independent judges who make independent decisions. Liberals just hate the idea that they tend to agree with the Administration more often than they don’t, as the next point shows this very well.

Page 1 of 3
1
Last


Write your comment below:




jfore

I'm a new user who hasn’t written a bio yet.

Member Since: 11/1/2006