© 2001-2009 Perish the Thought Associates. Contents are the property of contributors. If you steal anything, we WILL hunt you down and hurt you.
|
 |
| |
Thursday, December 22, 2005 |
Posted at 10:29 pm by Rhet
Permalink
In gratitude for our many blessings -- especially for the men and women who stand watch as we celebrate this holiday season ....
Joyous Chanukah,
 and Happy New Year !
Posted at 08:39 pm by Rhet
Permalink
| |
Sunday, December 18, 2005 |
Civil Liberties, Politics & the Patriot Act
So where were the barking moonbats back in the mid- and late-90's when Clinton's administration "installed" the hush-hush (domestic and international) telecommunications spy programs called Eschelon and Carnivore?
Ever seen the list of keywords that those programs monitored in cyberspace and in domestic communications?
Did it bother you THEN to have email, website visitations, chatroom content and telephone calls monitored?
Don't fall for the hype projected by the MSM and politicrats. Don't let national security be politicized by barking moonbats who've been bashing Bush since he whipped their butts a couple of elections ago.
Just because THIS President has taken national security to heart is NOT a bad thing.
Oh?
You think it's bad?
Why?
Ahhhh .... you don't want big brother watching you?
OK -- try to think of it as watching OUT for you.
Still don't like it?
Tough. (I can't wait to hear you bitch because state governments install similar "monitoring" programs to tax you for items purchased on the net.)
The majority of us DO like it.
Wanna know something else?
For starters, ask surviving friends and families of the 9/11 attack what they would have preferred.
Survey families and communities whose lives/resources were spared because national security provisions (monitored under President Bush's watch) worked.
Find out what Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Burger stole from the National Archives ....
Go ahead.
Dare you.
Better still --- break away from that bleating moonbat herd and educate yourself. Read the Patriot Act. Learn what Clinton's administration failed to do following the first terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. Research the Eschelon and Carnivore projects.
If you're still in doubt about what and why GWB has authorized, back up your position with facts -- and not the same old over-generalized bash-Bush bullshit hype.
Go ahead. Sock it to me.
I'd much rather read your words than headlines about another terrorist attack.
Posted at 01:26 pm by Rhet
Permalink
| |
Saturday, December 17, 2005 |
Reporting the Truth & the Right to Know
Remember when news stories contained the who-where-what-why-when early on in the article? If you actually read the New York Opine's entire year-old "breaking" story alleging that President Bush authorizied illegal wiretaps in the war against terrorist, you may have missed the 5-w's. They were buried several paragraphs deep into the article ....
Unless you want to accept opinion and innuendo as "fact."
"What the [National Security] agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.
In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said."
Did the "special collections program" save lives and stave planned terrorist attacks within the US?
You better believe it did.
Check out Iyman Faris' 20 year imprisonment and his al Qaeda role in planned terrorist attacks, for instance. Or ask someone who drives through the NYC tunnels on a regular basis. Ask a family or canvass a community for whom a terrorist plot has been thwarted.
Go ahead. Investigate; draw your own conclusions; make your own decision. The right to know about national security is also one of your liberties.
Posted at 04:05 am by Rhet
Permalink
Gimme a break, Bush-baiters. I, for one, am NOT falling for another line of MSM hype, innuendo or mis-speak. I don't care what you think of Bush. Or Republicans. Or conservatives. Or unaffiliated voters like me. I do care about national security.
Get thee to the federal archives, moonbats. Communications that occur/originate outside the US and which involve a threat to national security are NOT held to the same standards as communications which occur or originate in the United States by US citizens.
It may not matter to Bush-bashers and the desperate-to-distract democrats that several post-9/11 planned terrorist attacks on the US and it's allies were disrupted --- but it sure matters to me.
Is there some correlation with the Senate nonauthorization of certain sections of the Patriot Act to the release of The New York Times story alleging the President authorized the CIA to monitor "domestic communications?"
You gotta be kidding.
The New York Times conspiring with politicians? The New York Opines? The famed revenue-losing, egg-on-its-journalistic-face New York Times? The Notorious Yack Tack? God-faulter of the MSM? Feeding the blame-Bush frenzy? Perish the thought.
Yet .... Why did the NYT wait one year before releasing their misleading story and headline RE: the President authorizing the CIA to monitor "domestic communications?" And why was it released NOW?
Let's see .....
The vote in Iraq seems to be going well (credit President GW Bush -- perish the thought that MSM would ever credit GWB with anything "going well").
The ACLU -- gag alert -- that self-propelled <flapflapflapflap> guardian of constitutionality and social justice needs some good press following another anti-Christmas flop.
And voila! The Senate concurrently delays (no politics there, I'm sure) reauthorization of the Patriot Act to ensure that our civil liberties are protected (uh huh) just in time to give -- you got it -- aspiring Republicats, vengeful democrats, dummer-than-doorknob mootbats and anti-government tin-hats a ready-made politically expedient topic for the holiday circuit of talking-head shows and soapbox-blows.
Is it a coincidence that one of the writers of this "breaking" story just released a new anti-Bush book? Why would you think that?
And what if NONE of the politicos who so desperately seek self-promotion didn't have the venue?
Or better still .... in keeping with a holiday tradition which offers public appearances and audiences of millions -- invite these politicians to speak during half-time at each bowl game.
And give the audience yellow flags, instant replays of past votes and whistles. Oh yeah -- and some newsprint for making those paper airplanes.
Posted at 03:26 am by Rhet
Permalink
How they voted 2001 & 2005
Hummmmmmm .... Someone begin cataloging the holiday comments. Don't make me have to reprint the entire 2001 Patriot Act debate in this blog.
Here's how they voted for the Patriot Act October 2001.
| YEAs ---98 |
Akaka (D-HI) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM)
|
Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (D-FL) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN)
|
McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Mikulski (D-MD) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
|
| NAYs ---1 |
Feingold (D-WI)
|
|
| Not Voting - 1 |
| Landrieu (D-LA) |
Here's how they voted today, Dec. 16, 2005.
The 52-47 roll call by which the Senate voted to reject reauthorization of several provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Sixty votes were needed to overcome a filibuster of the bill.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to end the filibuster and a "no" vote was a vote to continue a filibuster.
Voting "yes" were 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 41 Democrats, 5 Republicans and one independent.
Democrats Yes
Johnson, S.D.; Nelson, Neb.
Democrats No
Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.
Democrats Not Voting
Dodd, Conn.
Republicans Yes
Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Burr, N.C.; Chafee, R.I.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.
Republicans No
Craig, Idaho; Frist, Tenn.; Hagel, Neb.; Murkowski, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.
Others No
Jeffords, Vt.
OK. I've found the link to the 200l Congressional Record. I wonder if those who have changed their minds (again) need cue cards?
Posted at 03:16 am by Rhet
Permalink
National Security vs Civil Liberties
Surely -- even if you believe the New York Opines hype -- you aren't going to suggest that what the President is alleged to have done presents a legitimate conflict between MY civil liberties and OUR national security, are you????
Perish the thought.
So other than stopping a few terrorist attacks on Americans (for which I'm grateful -- by the way), if I "believe" in civil liberties, I gotta hop on the ACLU-bandwagon because the President of the United States of America had the unmitigated audacity to authorize tapping/tracing international terrorist phone calls to some of my fellow Americans????
Even though the President has (as did his predecessors, coincidentally) the constitutional authority to do so?
Sounds like a smoke screen to me.
So now we gotta spend umpteen zillion tax dollars on another investigation AND hear talking heads and politicos expound on the proclivities of civil liberties vs national security? Again?
Didn't they do that after 9/11 when the Patriot Act was approved with only one dissenting vote?
Please. No.
If there really IS a Santa -- let Arlen, Teddy, Barbra, Hilliary, John, Nancy, Chuckie, Charles and Joe et al, including Jesse and Pat and Jerry just keep a sock in it during the holiday.
Or at least limit them to local, closed circuit pay-per-view TV.
Thanks, Santa.
Santa?
Posted at 03:03 am by Rhet
Permalink
 Why do I feel there just HAD to be something to detract from recognizing the achievements of the Iraqi people. Better still -- something --anything-- to detract from writing or referencing success and GWB in the same sentence.
Maybe I'm missing something .... Let's see .....
The Senate -- in an end-of-session stand-off, featuring the usual squeaking wheels (i.e., aspiring Republicats, disgruntled democrats, squawking moonbats, ACLU-twiddletats and anti-government tin-hats) -- are now calling for a(nother) investigation to challenge the credibility and/or authority of the President on the basis of an article in the New York Opines?
All in the name of civil liberties?
Right? As in correct?
And on the basis of this "breaking" year old story -- a few provisions of the Patriot Act are now "compromised" by allegations made in a revenue-losing biased bastion of truth?
May I ask a simple question?
Where were all those "outspoken" Senate committee members who knew about these "illegal" Presidential authorizations BEFORE this year-old "breaking" story????
Why have they waited so long to speak out????
They're right. There should be an investigation. The American people deserve better than a political stand-off while politicians jockey for their turn on the soapbox.
Maybe we deserve this. Maybe we didn't learn anything post-9/11.
Makes me wonder what story would have "broken" if the Iraqi elections had NOT been successful ....
Posted at 02:23 am by Rhet
Permalink
The Patriot Act and the New York Opines -- I mean, Times
 Meanwhile, back to the Senate vote not to reauthorize the Patriot Act and the affiliated (how convenient) bait-gate NYT story on how President Bush is allegedly authorizing the NSA to "spy" on American citizens ....
Let me see if I understand this. (You legal-beagles feel free to chip in when you feel the urge.)
The Patriot Act is like a bureaucratic umbrella which includes several stand-alone laws which contiguously and continuously maintain our guard against terrorist attacks on US soil <and elsewhere>, but which is portrayed symbolically as a program enacted by GWB, and thereby, open to criticism by any and every Bush-basher, aspiring Republicat, disgruntled democrat, squawking moonbat, ACLU-twiddletat and anti-government tin-hat.
How's that?
The failure to re-authorize the Patriot Act will have minimal (like less than 5%) effect on ongoing security provisions -- unless some terrorist plot slips through that 5% loophole. And if some plot does God-forbid-materialize -- let the senators who voted NOT to reauthorize the Patriot Act forever bear the burden of their vote. Forever. Amen.
While it may be "politics as usual" for democrats, self-serving Republicats and Bush-bashers to assume that voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act would be to "rubber stamp" a lame-duck White House policy -- defending a "NO" vote as a pretense to protecting civil liberties may just backfire on several fronts.
I pray this backfire is only on THEIR front.
Didn't these folks debate this issue back in 2001?
<Repeat the preceding sentence.> And perish that thought, too.
Posted at 02:15 am by Rhet
Permalink
| |
Thursday, December 15, 2005 |
Time Out for a Common Birthday
Wouldn't it be nice if we put aside our differences for one day to celebrate a common birthday?
It was on this day in 1791 that the Bill of Rights was adopted by the United States. It was the lack of a bill of rights that made the Constitution so controversial a few years before. Many people feared that the adoption of a strong central government could lead to tyranny unless certain rights were guaranteed to the people in writing. Patrick Henry refused to endorse the Constitution for that reason. Thomas Jefferson supported the new constitution, but when he read the first draft in France, he wrote a letter to James Madison saying, "Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."
It was James Madison who finally realized that bill of rights was essential to passage of the Constitution, and he promised all the states that a Bill of Rights would be immediately adopted upon the Constitution's ratification. Madison introduced the bill of rights into the first session of congress in 1789, and he used George Mason's Virginia Bill of Rights as the model for the new federal Bill of Rights. Madison originally supported the adoption of seventeen amendments, which was eventually trimmed to twelve, of which ten were adopted.
The rights that were included in the Bill of Rights were directly related to the recent experiences of the colonists. Many colonists had come to this country to get away from religions oppression, so the Bill of Rights protected the free exercise of religion. During the Revolutionary War, colonists had seen printers and journalists jailed and executed when they had opposed the British king, so the Bill of Rights protected the freedom of speech and the press.
The colonists had seen what ordinary citizens with guns could do when they had to fight a revolution against an oppressive government, and so the Bill of Rights protected the right to bear arms and raise militias. Many colonists had been forced to take British soldiers in their houses during the Revolutionary War, and they had also been subject to random searches and seizures by British police. So the Bill of Rights protected citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the quartering of soldiers. Colonists had seen people thrown into dungeons for no reason, had seen people tortured into giving confessions, had seen inquisitions go on for months, during which the accused were worn down by lengthy interrogations. And so the Bill of Rights gave citizens the right to due process of law, a speedy trial, the right to call witnesses, and the right to use a lawyer in one's own defense.
Happy Birthday ....
source: Garrison Keillor Newsletter
Posted at 08:45 am by Rhet
Permalink
|