Posted on 06/23/2006 12:31:15 PM PDT by oxcart
No joke! "the competition caught up to us" is what it was all about. Instead of taking the high road and say we knew but we didn't publish out of concern for the country they just printed it to keep up with the competition. Traitors all of them. "Off with their heads!"
A Yahoo search of the what this wuss has put out before, shows that he is probably another outraged marxist homosexual drive by journalist, employed by the Ny Slimes.
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines03/0606-08.htm
Published on Friday, June 6, 2003 by the New York Times
Justice Dept. Bans Event by Gay Staff
by Eric Lichtblau
WASHINGTON, June 5 — The Justice Department has barred a group of employees from holding their annual gay pride event at the department's headquarters, the first time such an event has been blocked by any federal agency, gay rights leaders said today.
Justice Department officials told the group, called DOJ Pride, that it could not hold its annual event at the department because the White House had not formally recognized Gay Pride Month with a presidential proclamation, Marina Colby, a department policy analyst who is president of the group, said. The group represents several hundred gay and lesbian employees at the department.
"This sends a real chilling message to Justice Department employees who are gay and lesbian," said David Smith, a spokesman for Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay advocacy group.
"This says, `You're not welcome,' " Mr. Smith said. "It says that employees can celebrate Asian-American heritage month, and Hispanic heritage month and so on, but you cannot."
Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, refused to comment.
The gay pride event has been a tradition at the Justice Department since the late 90's, organizers said, and many other federal agencies have held similar events since the mid-1990's, when President Bill Clinton first declared a Gay Pride Month.
Last year Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson — the second-ranking official at the department — spoke to about 150 people at the event in the Great Hall of the department. Ms. Colby said the presence of such a high-ranking official "was a really big deal for us, a real sign of support."
But Mr. Thompson's appearance drew protests from some conservative groups. Some accused Attorney General John Ashcroft, a social conservative who has spoken out in the past about homosexuality, of abandoning them by allowing last year's event to proceed.
Public Advocate, a nonprofit group that describes itself as pro-family, has continued lobbying the Justice Department and other federal agencies in recent months to abandon the gay pride events because it says the events are an inappropriate use of federal resources, said Jesse Binnall, a group spokesman.
Told of the decision to cancel this year's Justice Department event, Mr. Binnall said today, "We're absolutely thrilled that the Justice Department has made such a bold decision to stand up for American families instead of giving in to special interest groups."
Gay Republicans have become a more vocal force in party politics of late, but President Bush, unlike Mr. Clinton, has refused to issue a proclamation declaring a Gay Pride Month. The White House has said that the president does not believe "in politicizing people's sexual orientation."
Mr. Bush has issued more than 250 proclamations, acknowledging events like Greek Independence Day, Leif Erikson Day, Save Your Vision Week and National Hospice Month.
This is the first time any federal agency has forced the cancellation of a gay pride event, Mr. Smith said.
Ethnic and racial groups have held annual events at the Justice Department. But Ms. Colby, the leader of DOJ Pride, said the gay pride event was the only one she knew of at the Justice Department that was not covered by a presidential proclamation, and she believed that the Justice Department was using the proclamation issue as a convenient way to cancel the event.
Ms. Colby said she feared that other events that her group holds at the department, like panel discussions, could also be in jeopardy and that the existence of the group could be threatened.
"This was a total surprise to us," she said of the decision to block the event. "Every other association at the department has its recognized month and event, except us."
Amen, and can I pull the trigger?
A penis with ears
See post #22
As for the leaker or leakers though - that's another story. Trading in national security secrets in a time of war merits severe punishment - up to and including the death penalty. Want to stop the leaks? Start enforcing the Espionage Act. Make the Times' reporters give up the names, and throw them in jail for contempt if they refuse. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact. It protects the Times' right to publish, but does not allow them to traffic in national security matters without having to reveal the names of lawbreakers who feed them our secrets and threaten American lives. Let's let the Supreme Court chew on that one.
Thanks for that post of clarity.
I just wish we could get the leaker and the messenger when it comes to issues like this.
andy - Please don't blithly assume that the media is on solid legal ground here. They are not. Please read the following well documented essay on exactly how they are prosecutable. The key is the Pentagon Papers case. Middle-of-the-road Justices Potter Stewart and Byron "Wizzer" White both said that the espionage laws would apply to any private individual who possessed or published classified information. See: http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/print.php?story=06/04/30/7217729
Pinch Schulzberger = Pinch Sulzberger
He doesn't give a shit about this country. He's doing it for himself and his commie rag.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606093/posts
Lichtblau should have been fired after this piece of criminal cover-up. The testimony of the FISA judges was misrepresented to try to save his and Risen's original report . The next week, they got the Pulitzer instead.
Thanks for the link, my friend. I was thinking precisely about the Pentagon Papers when I posted my comment. I'll read on with keen interest.
You are welcome.
I forgot to mention that some disingenuous types (like Susan Estrich) will say well only 2 justices said that media is prosecutable. Of course that was not the issue before the court and the comments were what is known as obiter dicta (stray words), but the fact that the gratuitous observations came from the most well respected for being reasonable (not fringe) would help a latter court to go along with their line of thought.
Who remembers the debate in the media over the Monica allegations?
http://www.why-war.com/news/author.php?name=Eric+Lichtblau is a blogsite that suggests this Lichtblau guy is deeply involved in efforts to stop the United States from mounting a defense against the terrorists attacking us.
Forget boycotts, we need infiltration into their "newsrooms", a spy to find out who is leaking from the gov, and shut them down!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.