I believe Capitol Hill Blue deserves a place on DU but should be

[Quixote1818]

taken with a grain of salt just like most bloggers should be taken with a grain of salt.

After posting one of Doug Thompson's articles today I got a hand full of people comparing CHB to the National Enquirer so I decided to check out the reputation of the site. The conclusion I came to is exactly in line with my original thinking, that his work is plausible but needs to be approached with caution just like most bloggers.

One site describes an article from the site this way: An interesting account, whose veracity I am not necessarily vouching for (it seems rather thinly sourced for the depth of its accusations), of the afterlife of Total Information Awareness on an Arlington, VA, street. (The publication, Capital Hill Blue, sells itself as a place for old newspaper men to run "the stories their outfits don't have the guts to publish," which could either be a sign of brave truthtelling or reckless taletelling.)

Ok fair enough but websites like Daily KOS and Raw Story OFTEN publish information on their blogs or news sites and site "a reliable source" So does this make Daily KOS full of shit as well? It seems we hold Journalists to a much higher standard than we do Bloggers? Is that fair? I have no idea what the 'Kos' vices are and I don't care, you can bet these guys have THOUSANDS of people on retainer who pass them dirt on their enemies.


If we are going to say Capitol Hill Blue should not be posted on DU because Doug Thompson doesn't list his secret sources who are insiders in the Bush Administration then shouldn't we hold Bloggers to the same standard?

Both have a place on the net and on DU and both should be taken not as gospel but as another source of ideas to be considered as a piece of the larger puzzle.

[wakeme2008]

1. I agree not LBN source be a good

source for GDP.

[TomInTib]

2. I agree. I am at a loss to name any site that hasn't missed the ball

on occasion.
CHB shouldn't be totally dismissed out of hand.
In these times a some verification is required on just about anything we hear/read.

[Walt Starr]

3. I disagree

Everything I;ve everr seen from them has been utter bullshit. I have yet to see them break anything valid.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. I'm with ya

They seem to just hype stuff up that they know their target audience will eat up, regardless of any factual basis whatsoever. Sure, maybe one of their stories was right, once, but shit, even a broken clock is right twice a day right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Hell that is the way I treat the NYTs these days

I beleive the Guardian is a far more reliable news source

;-)

And judith Miller proves my point

;-)

Oh and as to bloggers well we would have to stop posting TBM, who does not list sources either.. what gets into people's crow is that Thomson is very much so an old paleo con, who has evolved into a libertarian and after doing my reserach, well shoot the man did work on the hill in the 1980s and indeed he has contacts

now think about it, if you had somebody telling you the dirty poo from the WH, any WH, would you reveal your sources? Unatributed sources are used all teh time by the WaPo and the NYT... so should we stop readying them too? (After Judith I think we can make an argument that the NYT does not on the breaking news section belong either)

:-)

[Rosco T.]

5. Malloy was talking about Capitol Hill Blue the other night...

.. he said that a lot of people nay-sayed it.. but MORE OFTEN THAN NOT THEY WERE CORRECT IN THEIR INFORMATION and he considered it 'reliable'..

fwiw

[Walt Starr]

6. That says more about Malloy

than about Capitol Hill Blue, IMO.

[Quixote1818]

8. Could you fill us in on the stories they got wrong?

I am totally open to your criticism. I want the truth to help me see through the fog. I found some info on an article they got wrong and they came right out and admitted they were wrong and had been played. Several bloggers complemented them for this.

See here:

Yeah, Doug Thompson got screwed by a phony source a year ago, and Capitol Hill Blue quickly 'fessed up to the screwing. If only the NYT would be so honest about how Chalabi has been conning them for a dozen years. (Imagine Judith Miller writing what Thompson wrote: "I was wrong. I'm sorry.")

The "conned big time" correction is pretty interesting reading. (Linked above in Phil's comment.) It's also tough to figure out what was really *wrong* about the phony source story:

On Tuesday, we ran a story headlined "White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes." For the first time, Wilkinson said he was willing to go on the record and told a story about being present, as a CIA contract consultant, at two briefings with Bush. He said he was retired now and was fed up and wanted to go public.
"He (Bush) said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said in our story. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."


A reliable spook -- known to various GOP pols --feeds Thompson all sorts of solid leads over twenty years, and then vanishes after one is said to be false. And the "false" story then makes it to CNN and a zillion web pages. Sounds like somebody in intelligence was sick of the Chalabi version and wanted to make Bush suffer. Well, it worked!

Also on Capitol Hill Blue: This weirdly disturbing June 4 piece on "Bush's erratic behavior" since the war went sour. I wish Will Ferrell was still on SNL to act out this story.

(I've met Thompson, as has Reason's "boy intern" Matt Welch. Doug's a smart, nice guy & has been publishing Capitol Hill Blue for 10 years.)

Comment by: Ken Layne at June 8, 2004 05:14 AM

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/06/tracking_down_t.shtml

[Walt Starr]

10. Better yet, why don;t you point out a time they've been right

I have yet to see one.

[Quixote1818]

13. Who would have believed Richard Nixon was talking to the paintings?

Most of his stories are about the chaos going on behind the scenes in the whitehouse. How can these kinds of stories be proved unless someone has the guts to come out and say it risking being smeared by the Bush Administration.

If I were leaking to CHB and was in the Bush Administration I sure as hell wouldn't come forward. We will most certainly have to wait a few years for these people to come forward.

[Walt Starr]

16. Or wait a few more years

to find out just how Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

11. Here's a piece of tripe

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7640.shtml

Avoiding detection at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 11, 2005, 02:28
Email this article
Printer friendly page


Wary White House aides, under constant scrutiny from a paranoid Bush administration hell bent on stopping leaks, have turned to a technique used by drug dealers and criminals to avoid detection – prepaid, disposable cell phones.

The phones, which can be purchased for as little as $30 each from discount stores, offer prepaid minutes and can be discarded when the time is used up. They require no contract or sign-up and are difficult to trace.

“It’s about the only way we can ensure any privacy,” one bitter White House staffer told me this week. “Our office and home calls are monitored along with our normal cell phones.”

<snip>

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Really , knowing how the drug trade works

yes I have experience with it and could tell you some stories, the story did not sound that crazy... remind me to tell you one day a reaction of a lady to Traffic and a particular scene, given I know how it ACTUALLY went down and that nobody would believe it, I found it commical

[Walt Starr]

17. Oh come off it!

Suggesting that White House staffers are running around acting like drug dealers is beyond insane.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. No it is not, given how the WH acts

it has that sound of oh my, may be closer to the truth than you are willing to beleive, by the way that is also how people act in repressed societies

[Walt Starr]

25. Yes, it is

It's a bullshit story. It;s tinfoilhat nuttery catering to people who want to hear this shit about the Bush administration,

I'll go a step further.

IT'S OUTRIGHT BOLD FACED LIES!

[Quixote1818]

35. Your right, and they never wanted to smear Wilson either.

Not to mention we now know they were following Wilson's every move as came out in Fitzgerald's investigation. This isn't only plausible stuff it makes sense based on a PROVED track record.

Sure we don't know for sure but for you to say it's lies is completely unfounded.

[mia]

79. "office and home calls are monitored"

Wouldn't be a bit surprised. Those prepaid phones probably come in handy when the staffers gossip among themselves and beyond.

[Quixote1818]

18. Didn't this exact kind of thing happen in the Nixon Administration?

nt

[Walt Starr]

20. No

Cell phones did not exist during the Nixon administration.

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Enemies lists

Deep throat.

Public phones (instead of cell phones)'

Yep you are right it did not happen

[Walt Starr]

27. Geez

Bush has enemy lists with 10,000 people on it.

:eyes:

That and a buck might get you a cup of coffee.

It's bullshit. It's a bold faced lie. IS there an enemy list, possibly. Are there 10,000 people on it, NOT EVEN A POSSIBILITY.

It's tinfoilhat nuttery.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Tell that to Stalin, the Lubianka had a list of over 1 million

[Walt Starr]

38. USing Stalin is as valid as using Hitler

And by virtue of the first corallary to Godwin's law, I claim victory in the debate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. You can claim whatever you want

you are living in denial of how close we now live to a police state, you claim goodwin I claim FISA and the USPA... READ THEM!

[Walt Starr]

47. Oh brother

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Have you READ the FISA expansion allowing them

to basically use a FISA court against you, or have you not?

Oh and do yuou even know what these are?

[Walt Starr]

50. Oh brother

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. You have not , I see

if you had, yuo would know what I am talking about. by the way google the term, and EDUCATE yourself

[Walt Starr]

54. Oh brother

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Here is your introduction

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)
Prepared by Lee Tien, Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Counsel, Sep. 27, 2001
1. What is FISA?

FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which establishes a legal regime for "foreign intelligence" surveillance separate from ordinary law enforcement surveillance. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95- 511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1811, 1821-1829, 1841-1846, 1861-62).
2. What is the purpose of FISA?

FISA is aimed at regulating the collection of "foreign intelligence" information in furtherance of U.S. counterintelligence, whether or not any laws were or will be broken. See 50 U.S.C. § 401(a)(3) (defining "counterintelligence" as information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities). Department of Defense (DOD) guidelines state that the purpose of counterintelligence collection is to detect espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and related hostile intelligence activities to "deter, to neutralize, or to exploit them."

In short, counterintelligence and criminal prosecution are different.
3. How does FISA fit with regulation of electronic surveillance?

Given the "tendency of those who execute the criminal laws . . . to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures," the Supreme Court has viewed commumications interception as an especially grave intrusion on rights of privacy and speech. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 50 (1967) (quotation and citation omitted). "By its very nature eavesdropping involves an intrusion on privacy that is broad in scope," and its "indiscriminate use . . . in law enforcement raises grave constitutional questions." Id. at 56 (quotation and citation omitted). "Few threats to liberty exist which are greater than those posed by the use of eavesdropping devices." Id. at 63.

[Walt Starr]

59. Oh brother

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. You did not even read it, did you?

so you are not equiped to say anything on it but oh brother!

[Walt Starr]

63. Oh brother

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. I never thought I would do this, but you win... oh brother, not

because you know how to argue, but because I don't have time to try to educate those who are incapable of learning.. and on this, you are...

[Walt Starr]

67. Oh brother

:eyes:

[Kralizec]

85. dupe

[Kralizec]

84. "Where art thou?"

:eyes:

[Kralizec]

87. "I claim victory in the debate."

Oh, get over yourself, Walt Starr, get over yourself.

I get so annoyed reading your messages, and you post a lot.

But by all means, don't stop. I wouldn't want to be flamed by you or your goons for trying to ask you to shut the hell up, or something like that, so I won't.

And please don't say something like, "Then ignore me." Because I don't ignore anyone.

[Quixote1818]

24. Yes, but Nixon was keeping tabs on those around him. nt

[Walt Starr]

26. No, he wasn't

staffers were.

:eyes:

[Quixote1818]

28. What's the difference? nt

[Walt Starr]

30. One way personalizes it

the other way is something that happens in every white house administration, Clinton's included.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. No we know this is unque to Nixon and most quite likely Bush

the way the USPA was written withthe expanison of FISA was done to be able to DO THIS on US Citizens, read the FISA sections...

[Walt Starr]

39. If you don't think the Clinton Administration kept tabs on the staffers

I've got a bride in Alaska to sell ya!

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Staffers one thing, US PRIVATE citzens a whole different matter

see the difference or do we need to spell it for you?

[H2O Man]

89. By that measure, J Edgar Hoover

wasn't keeping track of his enemies. His staffers were. I think that people like Martin Luther King felt that Hoover personalized it.

I have been in agreement with what you have said up until this one. While it is a minor point, it is important to recognize that Hoover and Nixon kept track of their opponents, just as Dick Cheney has. And, I think you would agree, when it came to Joe & Valerie, he personalized it.

The question posed in the original post is easily answered. The "source" in question should be considered no more seriously than National Lampoon or Mad Magazine. Because NL and MM had a few true things, and the NY Times has had errors, one cannot claim they are equal in value as news sources.

[sendero]

41. Could you tell me..

... exactly why this is tripe?

It sounds not only plausible, but quite likely. If I were working with that gang of thieves, I wouldn't want the FBI to be able to trace or intercept or even have a record of any calls I made.

[Rosco T.]

58. Having people break-in the DNC in Washington sounded silly also, didn't it

[Walt Starr]

12. Pure unadulterated hyoped up overblown garbage

White House keeps dossiers on more than 10,000 'political enemies'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Nov 8, 2005, 06:40
Email this article
Printer friendly page


Spurred by paranoia and aided by the USA Patriot Act, the Bush Administration has compiled dossiers on more than 10,000 Americans it considers political enemies and uses those files to wage war on those who disagree with its policies.

The “enemies list” dates back to Bush’s days as governor of Texas and can be accessed by senior administration officials in an instant for use in campaigns to discredit those who speak out against administration policies or acts of the President.

The computerized files include intimate personal details on members of Congress; high-ranking local, state and federal officials; prominent media figures and ordinary citizens who may, at one time or another, have spoken out against the President or Administration.

<snip>

:eyes:

[wakeme2008]

29. You really do not believe Bush would have an Enemies List

I only am surprised it is only 10,000.....

[Walt Starr]

32. 10,000 is unadulterated bullshit. It;s a LIE

It's out there for people who want to hear that Bush is concerned about 10,000 differnet people.

It's bogus tinfoilhat nuttery. It's as sensible as the hype that Hillary Clinton shot Vince Foster.

[Quixote1818]

52. Oh come on. The most powerful person on the planet is going to have

enemies and lots of them. It only makes sense they would have a very detailed enemies list probably put together by a number of computer programs that categorize the threat. Why is that hard to believe no matter who is president?

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. One of the two programs, Echelon

[Walt Starr]

56. It;s beyond the pale

It;s paranoid delusions, IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

good news most folks said the same about Nixon's enemy's lists

[Walt Starr]

62. Oh brother

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. That is all you have to say Walt? EDUCATE yousefl FISA

is REAL

[Walt Starr]

65. Oh brother

:eyes:

[Quixote1818]

73. 10,000 averages out to about 1 out of every 30,000 people

just in the United States not including the rest of the worlds six billion people. When you include the world the list averages out to only 1 out of every 60,000 people who the White House fears enough to put on a list.

If the President has only about 1 person per town on his enemy's list that seems like a very small number. Certainly not "paranoid delusions" by any means.

[Walt Starr]

14. The few, the proud, the maniacally paranoid

An enemy of the state
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 7, 2005, 08:14
Email this article
Printer friendly page


According to a printout from a computer controlled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice, I am an enemy of the state.

The printout, shown to me recently by a friend who works for Justice, identifies me by a long, multi-digit number, lists my date of birth, place of birth, social security number and contains more than 100 pages documenting what the Bureau and the Bush Administration consider to be my threats to the security of the United States of America.

It lists where I sent to school, the name and address of the first wife that I had been told was dead but who is alive and well and living in Montana, background information on my current wife and details on my service to my country that I haven’t even revealed to my wife or my family.

Although the file finds no criminal activity by me or members of my immediate family, it remains open because I am a “person of interest” who has “written and promoted opinions that are contrary to the government of the United States of America.”


<snip>

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Yuo think the Bush administration is NOT above that

Yuo did miss the many stories in the MSM over last week precisely detainloing the abuses of the National Security Letters, didn't you? Oh and how many people refused to believe Nixon kept enemies lists too?

[Walt Starr]

23. I think the Bush Adminstration doesn't give a rat's ass about Doug

Thompson.

But Thompson is in dire need of professional help.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Ok a little about myself and then you can call me paranoid, though

I know better

The US Government actually has an open file on me. Mine was opened in 1973 when my father applied for a green card... it was expanded when we moved to the US in 1983.

Then when we applied for US Citizenship in 1997, and further expanded when I married a US Navy Submariner... I KNOW there is a file, and not because I pose a threat.

hell having entered and left USN Base at Pearl Harbor, as well as USN Base at 32nd Street, US Submarine Base at Point Loma and US Marine Station Miramar I know there are photos, no not paranoid. I also know that while I lived in housing my phone was intervened more than once for OpSec... and you know what, after making some trouble over Guantamo I would not be surprised if a National Security Letter was issued... and that does not cover my ten years of working as a medic at times transporting some sensitive clowns.

No Doug is not paranoid... they had Will imam Short on the list in '73 too, you ignore this at your peril, oh and yes I assume that I will have an IRS audit one of these days... why? part of the common harassment.

[Walt Starr]

34. Tinfoilhat nuttery

Doug Thompson is nothing more than a freak and a nut. Plain and simple. I;d sooner believe a chimpy speech than Thompson because, quite frankly, there is more truth in a Bush speech than a Doug Thompson rant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Your prerogative

but I just desscribed the standard procedure for all immigrants and also I described the standard procedure to teh SOs of those who married to people with TS clearances... add FISA to that... you are now cooking

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. Learned of that place here. Have to admit, it is fun to lurk and read

their bloggers have a couple of good discussions. As for Thompson, his "Drinking" stories are now picked up by many other in the media - and they claim that they are developing those stories on their own.

Frankly, my own suspicion is that it is closer to the truth than Bush's run-up to an invasion of Iraq.

[kstewart33]

36. Where exactly should we put CHB? Is there a fantasy thread?

These guys are beyond out to lunch. And I am tired of DUers getting excited over the stuff that CHB shills as news, and later finding out that's it's, as usual, fantasy.

Please. At least no more CHB stories on LBN.

[Quixote1818]

43. I agree it doesn't belong on LBN nt

[Walt Starr]

45. Treat it the same way as any other rag, put it at the checkouts in the

grocery stores.

Capitol Hill Blue, National Enquirer, The Globe, Weekly World News, same shit, different rags.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. NYT, WAPO, NewsWeek, TIme, yep I agree with you

don't trust them either... happy now?

[Walt Starr]

49. WAPO, NEwsweek, Time are reliable

NYT has lost a lot of credibility and can be considered a rag these days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. No they are not, none of the US Press has really covered

the way to war in any critical way... none whatsoever, you want to believe they are reliable, fine... but they are not part of a free press or a critical press.

you want reliable, read the Guardian and the Observer

[DistressedAmerican]

68. Looks Like The Walt And Nadine Show!

:popcorn:

Although "Oh Brother" has been far too heavily relied upon around here...

[Quixote1818]

70. LOL

Walt is usually very good with his arguments and sharp as a tack. This is the first time I have seen him at a loss for words. We all have our off days I suppose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Nah as you can see I bowed out

the Oh brother has it... but the historical record will be fun... I am betting on a healthy serving of piping hot and fresh crow pie.

;-)

But it will take some time for the whole thing to emerge... fully

And pass some of that damn popcorn

:popcorn:

[wakeme2008]

72. LOL you should see what this thread looks like

after I hit the on the person that thinks Bush does not have an enemies list.


Bush has an enemies list IMHO the only question is the number on it.

[Walt Starr]

75. If Chimpy throws temper tantrums, then Clinton rapes women

See post # 74

[Quixote1818]

69. Well, this thread is a sign that DU has a healthy amount of skepticism

The way this thread took off with strong debate shows those on DU believe in finding the truth and checking into our sources. Something you rarely if ever see on FreeRepublic.

Even if several of us cant agree here the fact that we do disagree is a good thing in my opinion. The Bush administration should take note on how to avoid groupthink.

[Walt Starr]

74. Let's just look at some CHB stories, shall we?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/June1999/061099/clintonwomen061099.htm

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/020399/clintonrape020399.htm

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/022099/clintonrape022099.htm

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/022299/clintonrape022299.htm

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/022499/threewomen022499.htm

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/022599/clintonwomen022599.htm

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/022599/broaddrick022599.htm

[ChairmanAgnostic]

77. 1999? Boy, you really have a bone to pick with CHB. Did they toss you?

I can't imagine anyone taking such pains to keep track of things from 6 years ago.

I also don't see that Thompson wrote those articles. BUt, I do agree, just like with the NYT, it is responsible for the content. And Judith Miller's effort to blame her editors for her own failings, man, that is classic.

Does the NYT deserve scorn for bringing us closer to war? Absolutely. I find that, the NYT stories, far more offfensive that what the CHB is doing now with the Bush drunk stories. Especially with more and more confirmation.

[Walt Starr]

78. CHB, National Enquirer, the Globe, Weekly World News

Yellow Journalism is yellow journalism.

Space aliens chose Bush for president so the New World ORder could be implemented by the Illuminati in a worldwide conspiracy by the Bildebergers.

And the NYT are on the fast track to the same fate as CHB.

Back in the 90's, before there was a DU, I watched the Freepers fawn all over CHB for the Clinton rape stories, just like I've been watching DU fawn over CHB over the Bush temper tantrum crap for the past year.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

76. I think the problem with CHB is not so much that their stories are false,

(which I think they probably are), but that they traffic in the kind of stories that CAN'T BE PROVEN EITHER TRUE OR FALSE.

I.E. Bush ranting at staff, Bush having an affair etc.

So they traffic in salacious rumors that their audience would love to be true but can't be proven.

I assume they are somewhat safe from libel charges because their targets are public figures, and would just as soon not be seen tussling with a scandal rag, as the readership is small enough it probably doesn't hurt them much anyway.

[DistressedAmerican]

80. Bingo! My Beef EXACTLY!

[Quixote1818]

81. They seemed to hit on Bush freaking out over the Plame leak before

anyone new much about any of that. They were quoted several times by other sites before the CIA asked for an investigation suggesting Bush was paranoid that an investigation could be launched. I don't have the article but I remember reading a couple of articles that quoted CHB on that. I find this significant because it seems so subtle but with profound consequences to be proved later. Only a Bush insider would have access to something like that before the media homed in on the Plame story.

I remember this because thats when I started reading Capital Hill Blue.

If I find that article I will post it.

Food for thought.

[Quixote1818]

82. How about stories like this one by CHB?

http://www.topplebush.com/article125_recpres.shtml

This story doesn't fall into that category along with many others I have read.

[Walt Starr]

83. Tinfoilhat nuttery

They took stories that were all over the MSM (i.e. Bush using a private counsel for the leak investigation) and embellished it with what those who oppose Bush WANT TO HEAR.

It's a bullshit story.

[Quixote1818]

86. I think this is where I first came upon Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_detat.html

They seem to quote CHB as breaking these stories.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

88. I don't see how this article proves your point at all. Wayne Madsen is

not any more reputable a source than CHB, for him to refer to a few of their articles proves nothing, they were not articles that were subsequently proved beyond the CHB conjectures.

Rumor/tinfoil sites feeding off each other.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. This thread proves something quite deep to me

Many Americans are still unable to comprehend that the mechanism for a police state are in place

Call it tin foil nuttery if you wish, but the expansion of FISA to cover US Citizens has happened, why was that done? Ask yourselves those questions... the USPA is not a bill of rights loving bill. The Gov'ment wants to reduce or get rid of Posse Comitatus and even Habeas Corpus.

So call it tin foil nuttery, just don't be too surprised when you do get a knock in the dead of night if we should loose this one

It also proves that some folks have a bone to pick... by the way, my opinion of US Media, NO RELIABLE, and this is a brush across the field... any story, weather published by CHB, the Onion, the NYT, the WaPO, or Time is not believable, for any story can be used to push forth the propaganda.

Yet it is puzzling to me that some folks will go on an rant over CHB and not realize that it is the WHOLE of the US Media that is compromised. ALL OF IT. We no longer live in a free country, understand that, and the mechanisms are there. Does Doug Thomson have a National Security Letter against him? Given the charges that they have been expanded in their use at least 10 fold since the FISA regulations were expanded, would not surprise me. Do any of us have Natrional Security Letters used against us? Some of us probably do, and I assume I do... Am I paranoid or RIGHT?

This is the new world bush has created, and it is time people stop denying that world, and realize the mechanisms for a modern police state are in place...

By the way, hi Mike, enjoy readying much? I am sure your pals back at HQ are havng a chuckle over the huge denial by some, are you not?