It’s Time to Review the Usage of the Patriot Act
To begin politicalscribe, I don’t read in my quoted text, within your previous posting, that I’ve said or implied anything regarding “the length of time” the Patriot Act as been under review. Perhaps in one or more of the reference links within my original posting may have stated or referred to a timeframe of length for which this bill has been under “review”, so I’ll have to take exception to this, but with a feeling of discern, since it is irrelevant as to intent of my posting, which was “the Patriot Act of surveillance on American citizens is in violation of our Constitutional Rights.”
Continuing on slightly a different aspect of the Patriot Act in what I consider of more importance is the following from CQ Politics:
Final Senate action on an overhaul of electronic surveillance rules could slip to after the July Fourth recess as the chamber juggles other priorities and procedural snarls.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., on Wednesday said clearing the legislation this week is less important than completing work on housing and Medicare bills.
The spying bill would rewrite the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Reid said Republicans have been holding up the housing bill, thus causing a delay of the FISA legislation, which is supported by the Bush administration.
Reid said he still planned to move the FISA bill this week — even though he opposes it — because he has an “obligation” to act on the measure. It has the support of a majority of senators, including many Democrats.
“I’m going to try to do that,” Reid said. “The only reason why I wouldn’t is . . . if we’re stuck on the housing thing and I can’t get to that.”
But he left open the possibility that the FISA vote could be delayed until July.
“There are two things we have to do before we go home for July Fourth: housing and Medicare,’’ he said. “We do not have to do, if the Republicans don’t want to do it, we don’t have to do FISA and we don’t have to do the supplemental” spending measure for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky., said he is eager to resolve the “complicated legislative tangle” and has the same goal as the Democratic leader: to “get all of those things done in the next few days.”
Senate liberals have been throwing up procedural roadblocks to the FISA bill, which they object to because it would effectively grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for allegedly aiding the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program.
They also argue that court and congressional oversight provisions in the measure are not enough to defend the privacy of U.S. citizens whose communications with foreign spying targets may be monitored without a warrant under the legislation.
Source: CQ Politics
Also of equal importance is from MoveOn.org, (e-Mailed to subscribers) requesting subscribers to contact Senator Obama, by telephone, and venting their concern over his “possible” flip-flop on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) issue and Patriot Act, as a whole. The e-Mail, in part, reads as follows:
Dear MoveOn member,
On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.
Now, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation." Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."
Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." We need him to honor that promise.
Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.
Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008
Take Action and Fight the Smears
The latest controversial smear by the McBush campaign has just been released on YouTube. It’s rather funny, but Senator McCain’s majority of YouTube video postings are “smears”, as opposed to his issue related policies.
Barack Obama breaks his pledge to take public financing.
It’s Time to Review the Usage of the Patriot Act
The Patriot Act, in my opinion, was the start of our demise to our personal liberties and freedom; but worse, it was a solid go-ahead for the Bush Administration to ram down the public’s throat any Executive Order or legislation they desired, as long as the operative word “terrorism” was embedded within their double talk.
The following video presents a very professional history of the Patriot Act in a directly, candid style:
A brief history of the Patriot Act, showing the many deceptions brought in by the Bush Administration, including: requesting total secrecy form public input and swapping at the last moment, the original Bill that Congress agreed to sign, with one manipulated by the Administration. The Administration's version of the Bill contained unconstitutional provisions that had been rejected earlier by Congress.
Regardless, Congress rushed to pass an, otherwise, unread Bill which sought to greatly expand all federal law enforcement powers -- far beyond their intended means. Hence, America would later discover that the Patriot Act had little, if anything, to do with fighting the actual "war on terror" and much more to do with bypassing the civil protections, granted under the US Constitution.
Gas at $4 brings promises, pandering
As home energy and gasoline prices increase, low-income households—defined as families of four with a yearly income below $32,604—are having to make serious cutbacks on basic necessities in order to make ends meet:
- 31 percent of low-income households report maintaining unsafe or unhealthy home temperatures in order to lower energy bills.
- 29 percent risked loss of home energy service due to skipped or partial payments.
- 31 percent have reduced spending on medicine.
- 70 percent have reduced spending on food.
- 65 percent have lowered their purchases of other basic household necessities.
Source: NEAD (pdf)
Be careful; many Americans feel privatization is a long term fix, which it is not! Again, a smoke screen has been put up for the baby boomers to believe in and what troubling is “no one” in our congress or executive branch is dispelling this ill conceived notion.
President George W. Bush called for a transition to a combination of a government funded program and personal accounts ("individual accounts" or "private accounts") through partial privatization of the system. The personal accounts could be invested in various managed investment funds similar to the government employees' Thrift Savings Plan, in which the investor can choose between Treasury Bills, Corporate bonds and a stock market fund. Since the Report of the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security, the Social Security program has been the subject of widespread debate. After President Bush highlighted the issue in his 2005 State of the Union Address, the debate became especially intense.
However, critics argued that privatizing Social Security does nothing to address the long-term funding concerns. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on October 4, 2006 "Reform of our unsustainable entitlement programs should be a priority." He added, "the imperative to undertake reform earlier rather than later is great."[2] The tax increases or benefit cuts required to maintain the system as it exists under current law are significantly higher the longer such changes are delayed. For example, raising the payroll tax rate to 14.1% immediately (from the current 12.4%) or cutting benefits by 11.4% would address the program's budgetary concerns indefinitely; these amounts increase to around 16% and 22% if no changes are made until 2041, when the fund is exhausted.
Source: Wiki
The old game of “smoke and mirrors” look here, but what’s happening is over there!
Political Play: Obama carries lucky charms
For myself the “lucky charms” are being human and perhaps not believing in, but more so, as a reminder of a person, event or issue that’s important to you and perhaps “only you”.
The strange thing about lucky charms; they are some what important to only you, whereas if I had in my possession Senator Obama’s charms in my pocket, they would mean little, other than the fact I have the next President of America - lucky charms.
Three women who might join the GOP ticket
An interesting article came out on Politico regarding Senator McCain’s possible choices for women candidates to join him on his ticket to the White House.
Personally I haven’t heard much about either of these possibilities, but I'm interested in comments PBer’s may provide, so I understand the enemy.
While the vice presidential slot may be John McCain’s best means of wooing those Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters who remain loath to embrace Barack Obama, the Republican party is a thin source of politically viable women, leaving McCain with few top-tier options.
The most-mentioned potential running mates — former Republican candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty — are all men. Yet no clear front-runner has emerged, and there are at least three women McCain might select to fill out the ticket. All three would mark a symbolic turn away from Vice President Dick Cheney, the ultimate D.C. old-boys-club insider.
One obvious choice is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She’s as near to Cheney on policy as she is far from him symbolically. Rice, however, has consistently denied interest. While such denials are par for the course for prospective veeps, if Rice is indeed out of the mix, that would leave McCain with three other likely female running mates to consider.
Source: Politico
From left to right, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Photo: Composite image by Politico.com
I’ve found what you’re looking for!
I can’t believe the foolishness of McCain’s Campaign – Just released is his latest video strictly devoted to “The Straight Talk Express”. I sure hope my tax payer dollars don’t go to funding his campaign to produce advertising like this:
The Straight Talk Express - June 18, 2008 - Take an exclusive, behind-the-scenes look at John McCain's campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express! Watch the video, then send it to your family and friends.
Obama Announces Group on National Security
Oops, Sir, Sorry,
Senator Obama really “Hits Home” on 9-11 and the Bush Administration’s lack of success in tracking down Bin Laden and making any major gains in stopping world terrorism. Also included in his presentation is the purpose of the National Security Committee and the scope of issues they will be addressing:
June 18, 2008 - Barack Obama met with his senior working group on national security today in Washington, DC to discuss moving away from failed Bush policies.
If the GOP chucks out McCain, who would they go to instead?
I’d have to say former Senator Fred Thompson – Governor Mike Huckabee
It isn’t pretty but it’s my best guess to satisfy your criteria outlined with the exception of the last half of your first point “which would cause trouble among independents.”
Best guess – run with it!
Obama Announces Group on National Security
Ok Ms. HelloDollyLlama, I’ll bite and play, please provide me your suggestions that you would like to see on the committee.
For myself, after rendering it some though, I’m happy with the list, because as mentioned this is a “campaign committee”, not the Senator Obama’s wish list for his coming Administration. So, as you mention, there’s experience represented here and I would make use of that experience to form my National Security policies to be implemented by perhaps a younger individuals in the administration.
In other words, this group forms a “good foundation” in my opinion.
Obama Announces Group on National Security
Gee whiz Ms. HelloDollyLlama, I loved those choices Senator Obama made and agree with you first line within your comment “On the one hand, a lot of experience”, and as for your second and third lines I have to say they are a bit contradictory.
Eric Holder is some one I’ve never heard about, but he is a “change” and so I’m going to trust Senator Obama’s judgment, since this is only an advisory team to the campaign itself. I have been able to locate the following on Mr. Holder, which reads well, but I couldn’t establish a good relationship of Mr. Holder to the mission of National Security team as I understand its purpose.
Mr. Holder’s highlights:
Mr. Holder is a litigation partner who handles, among other matters, complex civil and criminal cases, domestic and international advisory matters and internal corporate investigations.
During his professional career, Mr. Holder has held a number of significant positions in government. Upon graduating from Columbia Law School, he moved to Washington, DC and joined the Department of Justice as part of the Attorney General's Honors Program. He was assigned to the newly formed Public Integrity Section in 1976 and was tasked to investigate and prosecute official corruption on the local, state and federal levels. While at the Public Integrity Section, Mr. Holder participated in a number of prosecutions and appeals involving such defendants as the Treasurer of the state of Florida, the Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, a local judge in Philadelphia, an Assistant United States Attorney in New York City, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a "capo" in an organized crime family in Pennsylvania.
Source: Covington Law
Obama Announces Group on National Security
This may be an indication of what is to come in Senator Obama’s Administration by the individuals he has selected to form is Senior Working Group on National Security, they are as follows:
- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
- Senator David Boren, former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
- Secretary of State Warren Christopher
- Greg Craig, former director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning
- Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
- Representative Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
- Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder
- Dr. Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor
- Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
- Secretary of Defense William Perry
- Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State
- Representative Tim Roemer, 9/11 Commissioner
- Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor
Senator Obama today announced the formation of his Senior Working Group on National Security, a group of advisors that he will consult on a regular basis between now and the election. Obama will meet with the group for the first time today in Washington, DC for a wide-ranging discussion of the immense challenges faced by the United States in the wake of the disastrous foreign policies of George Bush.
“Each individual here today has provided extraordinary service to our nation in the executive branch and Congress. Several have been advising my campaign for some time. We’re also honored to be joined by some of Senator Clinton’s senior advisors. In the months to come, we’ll be reaching out to others, as well as leaders in Congress,” Senator Obama said. “The stakes in this election could not be higher. John McCain wants to continue George Bush's foreign policy which has made us less safe, less respected, and less able to lead the world. It's time to change course. It's time to end the war in Iraq responsibly, refocus on Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and renew our global leadership so that we can tackle the huge challenges of the 21st century.”
Source: Obama HQ
What a team of distinguished individuals, I believe we’re going in the right direction!
Even the GOP far right is appalled at Mccain's Obama-bashing
Actually, I was thinking this General Election would be a lot more interesting to us here at Political Base, a lot more valuable to all us voters on the issues, a lot more valuable to the GOP; if Senator Clinton would switch political parties, thus becoming a Republican and challenges Senator McCain for the GOP nomination.
Also, the GOP would stand a much better chance of just losing the election in November as opposed to getting thoroughly embarrassed!
HelloDollyLlama, sorry I have to agree with Bethany.
Trading Microchips for Toasters – What’s Next
Yup, AvengingTiki, you were definitely on a roll!
I’d like to think we’re both correct, even though somewhat opposed, concerning possible solutions to the issues of “outsourcing” and our “trade imbalance”. Perhaps this shows how these two intertwined issues are so complex; that a well formed bipartisan congressional panel will be required to resolve these burdens on our economy.
Furthermore, I feel we both understand goods and service will cost more to us consumers, either through taxes or retail prices.
Take Action and Fight the Smears
Very truly spoken, especially your last sentence:
Politics does not corrupt people, people corrupt politics.
Myself I’ve always followed a saying, concerning politics, authored by Ted Sorensen, which is:
Public officials should be judged primarily not by their puritanism in private, but by their public deeds and public service, by their principles and policies.
By Ted Sorensen
Joe Lieberman needs a foreign policy briefing
Turning away from Senator Lieberman for the moment, but remaining on the same topic and one that I’m fairly sure Lieberman will pickup on is the Foreign Policy Summit, held yesterday in Washington D.C.
Here the latest video from Senator Obama concerning the aforementioned summit:
Barack Obama: Foreign Policy Summit in Washington, DC - June 18, 2008, Barack Obama met with his senior working group on national security today in Washington, DC to discuss moving away from failed Bush policies.
Trading Microchips for Toasters – What’s Next
AvengingTiki, I think you’re very correct in saying this is a tough issue to fine viable solutions to, furthermore in your posting there’s much I have to agree with and some, I’m not sure who is right (you or me).
Starting with job training; perhaps using as an example a company that manufactures washing machines and this company moves its assembly line(s) to an Asia country.
What vocational retraining (courses) would the factory workers be retrained in, assuming their average age was around thirty to thirty-five, family of three, home mortgaged and maybe somewhat better than a high school education?
Suppose this former washing machine company was originally located in a small Midwestern town with a population of 25,000; they receive new skills job training, who is going to pay for the relocation costs of the family relocating to another community where companies needing there newly acquired skills are required?
Lets assume these laid-off (unemployed) worker are receiving unemployment compensation (time limited factor); but there’s still the time element to consider, should their time be used to search for other employment or should their time be spent in classes for retraining?
Finally, who pays for the retraining? I think no matter how you look at this situation all Americans pay for this unfortunate family, either through increased taxes (county, state or federal) or by increased prices for goods and services, assuming their former company pays for their retraining or the new company they will start working for.
AvengingTiki, yes, we have to accept outsourcing will become a new part of our business environment, but it has to be limited and regulated until we answer the aforementioned questions and have a solid foundation to insure our economy will not be affected by other countries floating their currencies and controlling the markets ( maybe OPEC could be an example).
Just a quick note to consider, when you speak of unemployment (I believe it was 5.5% last month) what if a number becomes higher and “the troops” come home from Iraq? I feel this could be a major problem to consider in the future.
Trading Microchips for Toasters – What’s Next
Oh but you’re wrong HelloDollyLlama, thirty years ago industry was pitching “factory automation” with robotics and automatic testing for quality, and when the unions and workforce said “automation implies layoffs” the response was we’ll retrain our workers to become more productive, hence our company will be more competitive.
The catch was the unions assumed the company was going to pay for the retraining (how foolish) and the companies just continued with the layoffs, waiting for the laid off workers to retrain at a trade school, community college or university and return to work.
So the next step was, now that an idiot can push a few buttons on the automated equipment, the question arose “why are we paying these button pushers” union wage when we can get Asians much cheaper. Hence the dawn of outsourcing!
HelloDollyLlama, I lied you are correct in your posting.
By the way, the “idiot American button pushers” are waiting for retraining!
Sens. Dodd, Conrad tied to special mortgage deals
I think a lot depends on what Senator Dodd dose to make retribution for his inappropriate action. After all, there’s not that much difference between Senator Dodd and Senator McCain, when McCain was in business with his old buddy Charles Keating and the home loan scandal during the 80’s.
