[excon]

AMERICAN'S wanting a government that is BY the people and FOR the people.

Hello Saph:

I guess you missed the last election...

excon

[speechlesstx]

Here's something else to compare all that right-wing extremism to, a Gaza war protest in San Francisco in January sponsored by ANSWER coalition among others.









I'm not sure how people trying to "End Racism" can rationalize their open, hostile anti-Semitism but why quibble? I'd think that people who believe "every Zionazi is a miiltary target" and want to "globalize the intifada" are more of a threat than returning vets that have served their country with great sacrifice.

[excon]

Hello again, wingers:

I don't know. What's that old Republican saw you use when the government spies on people?? Isn't it kind of like this? "If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about"? I think it IS!

So, what are you worried about? Isn't a government who spies on its people something you support?? I think it IS.

Silly righty's.

excon

[excon]

Hello again, Righty's:

It was reported today that the National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year.

Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic...

Until I hear one of you raise hell about THIS, I've got NO SYMPATHY for you - not an iota.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Ex, if you believe the reports I just read the Obama administration has “reined in” the NSA so everything’s apparently cool. And that’s part of the problem. The media (and you guys) were all over Bush at every turn. Where are they now? Where’s the outrage at Obama continuing – even expanding in some instances - the same Bush policies that drew the outrage? You ask where were we then, well where is everyone now? When can both sides agree that enough is enough?

I think we can agree that for our safety certain things have to be done - while not trampling the rights of law abiding American citizens. OK? The point of the “domestic” surveillance was supposed to be international communications. They’d better have a damned good reason to monitor purely domestic communications, agreed? Yeah it would pi$$ me off if I knew the feds were monitoring my emails and listening to my calls because I am a loyal American and I’m not a threat.

So who is a threat? Shouldn’t we reserve scrutiny for those who are? That’s my point in this thread, why are we targeting conservatives – groups or people with such threatening views as being opposed to abortion and returning vets for instance – for “no specific” reason? The only similar reports from DHS on left-leaning extremists have been on animal rights/environmental wackos. You know, the ones that spike trees and destroy research labs. You don’t think large groups of people that are openly hostile to Jews, anarchists, militant gays such as those that targeted churches and businesses in California last year and violent, leftist students deserve a closer look?

Ain’t going to happen, because the left would rather have a domestic war with their conservative enemy than confront a real threat.

[inthebox]

Where are all the lefties ? I thought dissent was patriotic?

Is it only liberal dissent that is patriotic and conservatives are not allowed free speech rights?

Did the Bush administration's DHS ever propose that liberal thinking veterans were at risk for becoming terrorists?



G&P

[tomder55]

It was reported today that the National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year.

Well President Obama Barack did say he was going to end the threat of privacy.

He is trying to trap some of those Rightwing Extremists.

Or perhaps we have more terrorists, and their supporters in the US than previously thought, which is why more wiretapps/intercepts were needed.

[excon]

So who is a threat? Shouldn't we reserve scrutiny for those who are? That's my point in this thread, why are we targeting conservatives – groups or people with such threatening views as being opposed to abortion and returning vets for instance – for “no specific” reason?

Ain't gonna happen, because the left would rather have a domestic war with their conservative enemy than confront a real threat.

Hello again, tom:

And, my point in this thread, is that when we violate the Constitution to target ONE group, you shouldn't be surprised when your group is next.

Plus, if you think my opposition to domestic spying is based upon my view of conservatives, instead of my support for the Constitution, you haven't been paying attention.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

And, my point in this thread, is that when we violate the Constitution to target ONE group, you shouldn't be surprised when your group is next.

Tom is the Giants fan. But who's surprised? I'm not, nothing the left does surprises me.

Plus, if you think my opposition to domestic spying is based upon my view of conservatives, instead of my support for the Constitution, you haven't been paying attention.

Exactly. So where did your outrage go based on that support for the constitution?

[excon]

Exactly. So where did your outrage go based on that support for the constitution?

Hello again, Steve:

You want me to rehash my disdain for the Patriot Act? Ok, Steve, just for you...

It's an abomination for the government to violate the Constitution to spy on ANY group.

You don't really think I'm one way about that, do you? Nahh, you don't.

But who's surprised? I'm not, nothing the left does surprises me.

Who opened the door? It certainly wasn't the LEFT.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

You want me to rehash my disdain for the Patriot Act? Ok, Steve, just for you...

It's an abomination for the government to violate the Constitution to spy on ANY group.

You don't really think I'm one way about that, do you? Nahh, you don't.

Who opened the door? It certainly wasn't the LEFT.

Excon

Who did, the Dufus?

The Hypocritical War on Terrorism
By James Bovard, December 1996

President Clinton is continuing to agitate for new powers to suppress terrorists. He is demanding more powers for wiretaps, more powers to prevent people from using encryption for their e-mail, more powers to classify normal crimes as terrorist offenses, and so forth. As usual, Clinton's solution to every problem is more power for himself and his cronies. Clinton has scorned opponents of his terrorist proposals, claiming that they want to "turn America into a safe house for terrorists."

It is difficult to understand how politicians can denounce any private opposition to increased federal power when the government is already rampaging in many areas of the nation. The drug war has resulted in a pervasive use of National Guard units for oppressive search-and-destroy missions against suspected marijuana growers in many states. Using the military for law-enforcement purposes is very effective, since soldiers are more efficient than regular police because they often openly scorn the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional rights.

It is important to recognize the hypocrisy of government officials regarding illegal actions that result in the deaths of many civilians. In the days after the Oklahoma City bombing, the Clinton administration launched a full-court press to whitewash federal action at Waco. When a journalist stated in April 1995 on Cable Network News that he considered the 1993 Waco federal attack a terrorist act, Labor Secretary Robert Reich rushed to distinguish between what the feds did at Waco and the bombing at Oklahoma City: "We are talking about acts of violence that are not sanctioned by the government — that are not official." Reich sounded as if the government has a moral magic wand that can automatically absolve law-enforcement officials of any abuse, regardless of how many dead babies are left when the smoke clears. Atrocities committed by the government cannot really be considered to be atrocities — instead, they are merely policy errors — or, more accurately, public-relations mistakes.

Clinton, in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing, called for Americans to "all be careful about the kind of language that we use and the kind of incendiary talk we have." Yet it was federal officials who demonized the "cult members" at Waco long before the feds themselves were demonized over their actions at Waco. At the 1994 trial of the Davidian survivors, federal prosecutors compared David Koresh to Hitler and Stalin and declared that the 11 defendants "are as much religious terrorists as the people who blew up the barracks in Lebanon, the people who blew up the World Trade Center in New York and Pan Am 103." Yet, four ATF agents stated after the raid that federal agents may have fired first at the Davidians at the original 1993 raid. The government's vilification of the defendants was rejected by the jury and contributed to the perception that the government, like some right-wing zealots, was fanatical about Waco.

Neither the BATF nor the FBI ever made any efforts to apologize for their abuses at Waco. Indeed, the BATF last year rehired two agents (with back pay) who had been fired for lying about whether they knew that Koresh was expecting the initial BATF raid. And no one should forget that, before the embers of the dead children had a chance to cool at Waco, BATF officials raced in and proudly planted their flag atop the smoldering ruins.

The Clinton administration's attitude towards terrorism — massive, deadly force used against innocent civilians — was epitomized at the House Waco hearings in the summer of 1995. The highlight of Attorney General Janet Reno's eight hours of testimony on August 1, 1995, was her revelation that the 54-ton tank that smashed through the Davidian compound should not be considered a military vehicle — instead, it was just "like a good rent-a-car." Apparently the Justice Department had purchased the damage waiver and didn't worry about getting a few scratches or blood stains on those tanks.

Such an observation by Reno does not inspire confidence in the Justice Department's moderation in its future operations. The news media fawned all over Reno for her testimony and almost all the journalists failed to report Reno's "rent-a-car" comment. Yet, this comment goes to the heart of why Waco continues to outrage millions of Americans. The federal government used military force against American women and children — and then tried to cover up its violence and to pooh-pooh any critics. What are a few 54-ton tanks smashing into a home and gassing children among friends, anyhow?

Further evidence of the political abuse of the terrorist issue comes from comments by FBI Director Louis Freeh last year. Freeh repeatedly portrayed the new wiretap powers as vital in the fight against terrorism. But a report by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in May revealed that the FBI and other federal agencies have dismally failed to use existing legal authority against domestic terrorist groups. Though the federal and state governments imposed a record number of wiretaps in 1994 (1,154), not a single wiretap was installed in the pursuit of arsonists, bombers, or gun-law violators. No such wiretap against alleged terrorists has been requested since 1988. The vast majority of wiretaps were targeted against drug and gambling criminals.

Further evidence of Clinton's hunger for more power is clear in his proposed antiterrorism bill. David Kopel and Joseph Olson recently observed in the Oklahoma City Law Review :

"The new terrorism bill defines virtually any crime as 'terrorism,' whether or not related to actual terrorism. 'Terrorist' offenses are defined as follows: any assault with a dangerous weapon, assault causing serious bodily injury, or any killing, kidnapping, or maiming, or any unlawful destruction of property. Snapping someone's pencil, breaking someone's arm in a bar fight, threatening someone with a knife, or burning down an outhouse would all be considered 'terrorist' offenses. Any attempt to perpetrate any of these terrorist crimes would be subject to the same punishment as a completed offense. Even a threat to commit the offense (i.e., 'One of these days, I'm going to snap your pencil') is likewise labeled 'terrorism.' The extra federal power created by the legislation is superfluous to genuine anti-terrorism. It was already a serious federal felony to make a real terrorist threat, as by threatening to set off a bomb, or to assassinate the president."

Clinton and Democratic congressional candidates this year are making political hay over the fact that the Republicans have not yet kowtowed to this particular Clinton power-grab.

Clinton's proposed antiterrorism legislation also greatly expands federal wiretap authority. The Clinton administration wiretap legislation would allow the use of illegal wiretaps in federal court and would also allow "roving wiretaps" — covering a large number of pay phones in the hopes of catching some lawbreaker. There is widespread fear among both liberals and conservatives that the Clinton administration could use the new wiretap authority to go after vast numbers of critics of government policy who pose no threat of violence.

Clinton's proposed legislation would allow wiretaps against suspected violators of any federal law. Jamie Gorelick, a deputy assistant attorney general, fanned such flames on May 3, 1995, when she told House International Relations Committee that tax protesters could be one type of "criminal" targeted by the expanded wiretap authority. Democratic Rep. Robert Scott of Virginia, questioning Louis Freeh on the same subject, asked, "Where would you have drawn the line to differentiate that tax protester from any other person that's just mad about paying taxes? I mean, are you going to subject them all to wiretaps to find out?" Freeh responded, "No, we wouldn't have the resources to do that." Yet, since the antiterrorism legislation will greatly expand the FBI's resources, far more tax protesters could presumably be tapped in the future. Private-property advocates who denounce the abuses of the Fish and Wildlife Service could be another easy target for the expanded wiretap authority.

The Clinton administration also announced that it had issued a new interpretation of the guidelines under which the FBI surveils domestic political organizations. The revised guidelines will give the FBI a green light to infiltrate far more private groups and political organizations. Assistant Attorney General Gorelick told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even "without a reasonable indication of a crime, a preliminary indication can be undertaken" and "you could use informants and you could collect information, and then determine whether you have reasonable indication for a full-fledged investigation."

Freeh gave a most expansive definition of terrorism in a speech last year to the American Jewish Committee: "Terrorism is the work of people and groups seeking to further their causes through fear and intimidation." By this definition, vast numbers of cynical Americans — for instance, individuals who call talk radio shows and denounce government abuses — could be classified as terrorists. And the payments to all the potential informants could really drive up the old federal budget deficit.

And Freeh has been either manipulative or naïve when he speaks of public concern about government abuses. Freeh declared on May 13, "To my amazement, there are voices that . . . claim repression by government — and fear of government. . . . Sadly, I am astounded at these developments, as I think most Americans are." Once again, Freeh implies that the only decent attitude any American should have toward his government is blind trust, if not blind adoration. It is especially ludicrous for an FBI chief to express amazement at people's fear of the government, when the FBI itself trampled many citizens' rights in the 1950s and 1960s with burglaries, illegal wiretaps, character assassination, and intimidation, and when the FBI has yet to admit any misconduct in the cold-blooded killing of Vicki Weaver.

[tomder55]

Who opened the door? It certainly wasn't the LEFT

Ummm not exactly true. Clintoon used wiretaps on political "enemies" rivals using Eschelon. 60 Minutes did a report about it in 2000.

[speechlesstx]

Further fuel for the fire...

MEDIA, Pa. - April 8, 2009 (WPVI) -- A Penn State training video showing educators how to deal with troublesome students has some veterans hopping mad.

The controversial video has since been pulled from Penn State's webpage, but the outrage continues to mount, even among those who founded the American Veteran's Museum.

"It's a product of ignorance, people who don't know veterans, haven't served in the military of don't have that kind of experience with veterans," Pennsylvania State Representative Bryan Lentz said.

Lentz, who served in Iraq with the Army, is among those terribly disturbed by the since removed video designed to show instructors how to cope with "worrisome student behaviors."

In the video, the instructor tells the department head he is still having a problem with a student.

The department head responds, "The veteran?"

The instructor goes on to explain to the department head that she's very nervous because the veteran student has confronted her about the poor grades he's receiving.

The instructor says to the student, "This isn't a personal thing against you."

The student responds, ": I think it is, you've made it very clear in your class how you feel about the war and you're taking it out on me."

The instructor says, "My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the way I treat you."

Joe Dymond, who served in Iraq with the Marine Corp, is disturbed that the video portrays veterans as monsters.

"Instead of teaching understanding and compassion, our educators are teaching that veterans coming back from this war are someone to be feared, someone to be scared of," Dymond said.

Robert Pavone, who served with the Army in Iraq, calls it stereotyping.

"It kind of hurts you inside, like why would anyone portray us like that?" Pavone said.

Media Mayor Bob McMahon, who served in Vietnam, remembers how his colleagues were treated coming back from the war back in the 60's and says, 'here we go again.'

"Here we are with a college, a college that just doesn't understand what it's like to serve in combat and therefore they have a perception that they probably didn't realize was created in Vietnam," McMahon said.

Tonight, the university released a statement saying, "The video has been pulled and that there was certainly no intent to suggest that any particular student group was inclined toward worrisome behavior. Our portrayal of the student as a veteran may be viewed by some as unfairly stereotyping members of this important constituency. We certainly regret any misperception."

For its part, a university spokeswoman says they are grateful for all the feedback they have received, and that it has been an important learning opportunity for them, one they will use to better serve their veteran students.

Imagine if the video were about a black student, or a homosexual, a Muslim? Nah, the video would have been in support of them and not the teacher.

[galveston]

The Obama house characterization of conservatives is ARROGANT.

This is really bi-partisanship at its finest!

So much for the great unifier.

[speechlesstx]

Yeah, this is how the left "unifies." Right on the heels of this ridiculous report, Democrats are smearing conservatives both openly and secretly over the tea parties.

But in an interview on Fox TV in San Francisco, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) chalked up the GOP grass-roots effort as “AstroTurf.”

“This initiative is funded by the high end; we call it AstroTurf, it's not really a grass-roots movement. It's AstroTurf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class,” Pelosi said.

What a load of crap coming from people that have perfected the art of "astroturf" protests. It gets better though...

Other House Democratic leaders took a different tack: One senior aide has been circulating a document to the media that debunks the effort as one driven by corporate lobbyists and attended by neo-Nazis...

In addition, the tea parties are “not really all about average citizens,” the document continues, saying neo-Nazis, militias, secessionists and racists are attending them. The tea parties are also not peaceful, since reporters in Cincinnati had to seek “police protection” during one of the events, it states.

Where's the video footage of these "not peaceful" protests? Surely someone had a camera rolling on it. Where are the masses of neo-Nazis, miltias and racists that attended? You mean that one guy that called Obama a fascist? Yeah, roll the footage next to a San Francisco gay pride parade.

Or how about this from Congressman Schakowsky of Illinois?

CHICAGO, IL (April 15, 2009) – Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-IL, released the following statement in response to “tea parties” being held on Tax Day.

“The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs. It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt. Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”

What's shameful and despicable is the utter contempt Democrats like you show for your constituents.

[tomder55]

we call it AstroTurf

There are some subjects the left should not dredge up .

"When I was a younger man and had a life, I owned an El Camino pickup in the '70s. It was a real sort of Southern deal. I had Astroturf in the back. You don't want to know why, but I did."
Bill Clintoon

It's like the irony of Ted Kennedy giving the President a "water dog" .

[N0help4u]

My friend says that the lefties are claiming that the 'Republicans' are recruiting KKK members and they are bigger and stronger than ever because they aren't happy that we have a black President.
I figure there had at least 30, thousand at the tea parties yesterday and how many that couldn't attend because of work.
I know this is not a race thing!
I also heard the governor of Texas say that he is ready and willing to secede from the U.S. A. if they have to because he says he refuses to become a socialist state.

[tomder55]

Texas does not have a secession provision in it's constitution . The original 1845 constitution said that Texas could enter as a State in the United States or in 5 states subdivided from the Texas Republic . Texas as a state, nor any of those subdivided states had the right to secede from the Union.

Both the idea of a United States of America and before that an Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union more than implied that the states were forever bound together in destiny and fate into a indissolvable union .

Some of the greatest champions of limited gvt in the early years of the nation were very clear that they did not intend for the States to have secession rights.Andrew Jackson stated during the nullification crisis that The Constitution,derives its whole authority from the people, not the States. The States “retained all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation.”

Madison made it clear he was wary of any misinterpretation that the sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, or secession.When Washington gave the Constitution to Congress he said" In all our deliberations we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, perhaps our national existence.”

[speechlesstx]

there are some subjects the left should not dredge up .

"When I was a younger man and had a life, I owned an El Camino pickup in the '70s. It was a real sort of Southern deal. I had Astroturf in the back. You don't want to know why, but I did."
Bill Clintoon

It's like the irony of Ted Kennedy giving the President a "water dog" .

Nice pickup, tom.

[excon]

Hello:

Seems to me that secession, being treason, is worth investigating. Now, I don't know if I'd want to call Texas a right wing fringe group, but the Republican governor is trying to make it that way.

excon