jump to navigation

Is Mass Surveillance in America Really That Bad? June 8, 2013

Posted by Dindy in barack obama, Current Events, iraq, Islam, Muslims, Politics, privacy, Right wing, Terrorism.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Mass Surveillance in America

On Wednesday, the Guardian published a secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over data for all the calls made on its network on an “ongoing, daily basis.” Other revelations about surveillance of phone and digital communications have followed.

That the National Security Agency has engaged in such activity isn’t entirely new: Since 9/11, we’ve learned about large-scale surveillance by the spy agency from a patchwork of official statements, classified documents, and anonymously sourced news stories.

 

This is an example of the slippery slope. Almost all of Congress supported the Patriot Act when it was passed, and few Americans protested (yes, I WAS one of the protesters.) But now that we have started down the slippery slope that is the Patriot Act, they are finding more and more ways to infringe on our privacy. And at first glance, it seems fairly innocuous– they collect metadata regarding calls made in which one of the participants is outside of the US. Then they may initiate further surveillance and tap the phones. Who can complain about that?

Except my future son-in-law has family in the UK and calls them frequently. Now surely none of them would show up on the surveillance radar– but how do we know that, because we don’t know how they select the phones which will be tapped and whose phones they select? My almost son-in-law has a fairly common name, and we know from the experience my dh, Bill Robinson, has had at airports since 9-11 that merely having a name that is similar to someone who is on the Watch List is enough to warrant additional screening at the airport. Either that, or Bill, himself, is on the Watch list, which given his history of writing letters to the editor criticizing the Bush Administration is not inconceivable.

Then, I have another friend with family in Iran. They also speak frequently on the phone. Well we KNOW that anybody who lives in Iran is automatically suspect, right? (No, I don’t really believe that, but there are many who do!) So are they being tapped?

I have FaceBook friends who are from Pakistan, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. We became friends when I was playing Farmville and have remained friends. I’ve even chatted with a few of them on FB Chat. I don’t really know much about any of them, but what if by virtue of our FB chats and the fact that we are FB friends, any of us comes under suspicion?

Even if the current situation is not unreasonable, how do we know that the next permutation of this act won’t be? The Act started in 2001 allowing the sharing of “tangible” data such as tax forms,  books, business records and library check out records. It wasn’t till 2006 that we found out about the warrantless data mining of phone records. Then in 2007, the FBI and NSA started getting access to info from Microsoft, and in subsequent years Apple and Google. Well crap! That suddenly makes my Yahoo Account feel much more secure than the Google Account I’ve held for years as my very private email account. And with the purchase of my last Android phone and my iPAD, I now make frequent purchases through Google Check Out. So does that mean that the government now knows how much time I waste playing Angry Birds? Or are they tracking my purchase of John Denver Music with suspicion since he was known as a hippie peace freak?

The trouble is, it’s hard to argue with a program that has apparently been a factor in preventing further terrorist attacks in the US. It’s hard to argue with success. But how much are we willing to give up for that security? On the one hand, it’s easy for me to say that the government is welcome to look at any of my phone records, Amazon book orders and Angry Bird purchases they want– but there are a few problems with that– what if they start tracking what I watch on TV? What if they start instructing their satellite cams to zoom in on my house? How do I know they aren’t already doing so?

And what if they start taking a perfectly innocuous action of mine– and decide it’s suspicious? We’ve all had the experience of surfing the web and being pulled into a website we really didn’t want to see by inadvertently clicking on something else. Or, sometimes, in my attempt to learn about a subject, I might inadvertently  end up on a website the NSA has marked as suspicious. Will they then increase their surveillance of me? Start tapping my phones? Start reading my emails? Do I have anything in there I don’t want the government to read or know about?

Well, I have, on rare occasions,  criticized Obama. I’ve criticized Dubya and Cheney a lot, and if Cheney is still running things from his secret bunker as some have claimed, I might be in trouble. I have also frequently criticized the Patriot Act, right wing politics and Faux News. I’ve said, more than once, that Gitmo should be closed. Does that open me up to greater suspicion?

Many think that my aforementioned dh has become an apologist for Islam as he frequently argues against the anti-Muslim hysteria that we frequently encounter here in the US and in Texas. Does that automatically open him and me up to more suspicion?

It’s easy to scoff and say, “My life is an open book and the government is welcome to poke through my underwear drawer any time they like.” But are they really? If the organization doing the searching is determined to find something, I am not so sure that they won’t be able to dig up something. I did send a letter to President Nixon when I was a very little girl. In the letter I expressed my concern about the POW/MIA situation in Viet Nam. Clearly my anti-government tendencies go way back! (And no, I didn’t do it as a school assignment. It was of my own volition. I even got a letter back from him that my parents told me had his actual signature. I still have the letter somewhere.)

I do jaywalk rather frequently as it is the only way to get across the street in Fort Worth, and I have run the occasional red light and driven the wrong way down a one way street. I even go more than five miles above the speed limit on occasion.

I sent dirty letters to my husband when he was in Officer Training School in San Antonio, and I wore a black armband when Ronald Reagan was elected. I inhaled some second hand marijuana smoke while standing in line for a concert. I have muttered imprecations against the Catholic Church on more than one occasion. So I clearly am not as pure as the driven snow.

It seems kind of silly for me to be worried about this government erosion of our privacy, because I REALLY don’t have anything to hide. Yet, I am worried. How much more has the government failed to reveal about their data mining? And where do we draw the line and say enough is enough?

Advertisements

Important Enough To Read, But Not Important Enough To Listen To January 8, 2011

Posted by Bill in Constitution, Current Events, Politics, Right wing.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

First the House Republicans make a huge production about the importance of reading the Constitution on the floor of the House.  Then when they read it, most do not stay all the way through.   Attendance was rather sparse for this supposedly important event. 

In fact the speaker of the House, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, second ranking Republican in the House, could not even make time to stay and respectfully listen to the document they supposedly hold in such high regard and whose reading was so important. 

Now I am not going to state whether this was just a political stunt on the part of the Republicans or not.  If it was it was clumsily done.  If it was generated by a sincere appreciation of the Constitution and an honest belief of the importance of reading it aloud in the House – well that sincerity and honesty must be only half felt.  Otherwise they would all have attended and stayed throughout the reading. 

And would have read the complete Constitution. 

They left out the bit about slavery and also omitted the 18th amendment.  Even though both were later changed they are still part of the original historical document.  The Original…. that is something that Republicans have made into a bit of a fetish. 

For example, take their mantra of original intent.  That sounds nice –  just look at how our founders understood the Constitution and follow along.  However there is a huge problem with this, that being when you cite original intent you must also ask which founder’s original intent. 

A quick look at history shows that our founders, many of whom were at the Constitutional Convention and helped write this document, disagreed vehemently with each other on the meaning  of what they wrote and how best to implement it.  In fact, at times the rhetoric of their disagreements reached truly Glen Beckian proportions in terms of its vitriol.   

Republicans are fond of quoting just one of the founders and ignoring the voices of the other founders who disagreed.  For example, I recently carried on a conversation with a very conservative Republican individual who argued that our social security, welfare, and many other such programs were unconstitutional since they were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.  In fact, he was for eliminating about 90% of our government as unconstitutional.

He further stated that liberals and the courts have erred in their reading of the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution that has been used to justify some of these programs and cited Jefferson and Madison as the basis of his views.  He seemed to believe that their beliefs on how to interpret this clause was shared by all of our founders.

Before I post my response to this claim let me point out that it should be fairly obvious that the Constitution was meant to be interpreted.  It is too short to be an effective guide to forming and running a government without being interpreted.  Just think of government policies or even private industry policies and how long they are as they try to deal with every circumstance.  Now compare that to the length of the Constitution, even with the amendments, that is our guide to running a complete national government. 

It is an conceit born of ignorance to think that the Constitution can work without interpreting it.  Especially since this greatest of all political documents has to deal with a changing world – internet, easier travel, better communications, improved technology and medicine, etc – all of which create issues our founders never had to deal with. 

I was pleased that in doing research for my response that this point had been brought up in previous Supreme Court rulings. 

As for my response to my very very conservative Republican: 

You seem to overlook the fact that our founders did NOT agree with each other.  This holds true both for the meaning of and how to properly implement “the general welfare” clause as it does for every other section of the Constitution. 

In fact, Madison’s co-author of the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton, disagreed with Madison and Jefferson and took a much broader view of what this clause meant.  This broader view was one that at least two other of our founders, Washington and Monroe, shared.  

Now, while it was not until the 1936 U.S vs. Butler ruling that the Supreme Court ruled explicitly that Hamilton’s more literal and broader interpretation of the “general welfare” clause was the correct one there were several other rulings that laid the foundation for a  broader interpretation of the Constitution along the lines that Washington, Adams, Monroe, and Hamilton argued for.  

For example, Jefferson and Madison argued against a national bank by stating that it was not explicitly allowed by the Constitution.  Hamilton, with Washington’s concurrence, argued that it was necessary in order to carry out the provisions of the Constitution.  Hamilton won, both in the Congress at the time and later on in a Supreme Court ruling – McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819.

In that ruling, Chief Justice Marshall argued that Congress can act on both explicit and implied powers.  He stated that this must be so just as a matter of pragmatism; that if all the means of implementing the explicit powers were listed the Constitution would become much too lengthy to be practical or to be understood.

In other words, the Constitution was a framework of basic ideas that would need interpretation to be fleshed out into a working government. 

In this particular case his ruling said that since Congress had the explicit powers to issue and borrow money, collect taxes, and maintain armies then they had the implicit power under the “necessary and proper” clause to establish a National Bank.  

In this decision Justice Marshall wrote that:  “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional…” 

He also stated that the Constitution “…intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crisis of human affairs.”

In other words this unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court in 1819 stated that the Constitution had to be interpreted to be a workable document and may have to be “adapted” to changing times.   

As a side note I should mention that Daniel Webster argued this case before the Supreme Court and argued brilliantly for a broad view of the Constitution.  He obviously won the case. 

Perhaps I should let Alexander Hamilton now have the last say here. 

 [A] criterion of what is constitutional, and of what is not so … is the end, to which the measure relates as a mean. If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. ”

In other words, broad readings of the Constitution are Constitutional.  And have been argued to be so by many of our founders from the beginning.

Arizona Bill Doesn’t Go Far Enough April 23, 2010

Posted by Dindy in barack obama, Current Events, Obama, Politics, Right wing, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The State of Arizona, in an attempt to prove that Texas does NOT have the dumbest legislature in the USA, is considering a bill requiring presidential candidates to submit documents to the Arizona Secretary of State proving that they satisfy the constitutional requirements to be president. The Arizona House passed the measure on Wednesday on a 31 to 29 vote and now it goes to the Arizona Senate for approval.

Personally I don’t think the bill goes far enough. Why not pass a bill requiring candidates to provide proof of EVERY claim they make? After all, there is more evidence for Obama being a US citizen than there is for George Dubya Bush having served his full six years in the National Guard.

Wouldn’t that be something if every time a presidential candidate opened his/her mouth to speak, s/he had to provide proof that what s/he said was true? Would SOME candidates have a hard time with that? You betcha!

Let’s face, there is nothing in this world that will satisfy the whackos who insist that Obama is not a US Citizen.Countless media organizations have rebutted claims that Obama is not a US citizen, every judicial body that has looked at the matter has concluded that Obama is a US citizen, the Hawaiian government officials who are in charge of birth certificates have stated that his Hawaiian birth certificate is valid, but the whackos are determined NOT to be satisfied. In fact, they are so busy deluging the State of Hawaii with requests for Obama’s birth certificate– up to 50 a month– that the state is considering a law of its own– one that will allow it to ignore repeated requests to produce the document.

Actually, I think the State of Hawaii is missing a golden opportunity here. Obama has already made copies of his birth certificate freely available on the internet. If these right-wing idiots insist on demanding a copy of a document that is freely available on the internet, go ahead and provide it for them– at $500 a pop. Fifty requests a month at $500 each– Hawaii could go a long way towards balancing its budget on that kind of money. As a wise person once said– you can’t do anything about the idiots in the world, so you might as well make money off them.

Flower Power Has Given Way to Mob Power March 24, 2010

Posted by Dindy in barack obama, Current Events, health care reform, Obama, Politics, Right wing, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

I love living in Texas for many reasons– if nothing else it’s always good for a laugh– but after listening to the furor that has arisen since the passage of the Health Plan, it’s enough to make me long to live in a place where the sun hasn’t scalded everyone’s brain. It can be dangerous, however, to make generalizations based on where people live, and it is becoming ever apparent that Texans are not the only ones in need of an icepack on their heads.

Seriously, folks, when did it become okay for one member of Congress to yell “Baby Killer” at another member of Congress on the floor of the House, as the GOP Congressman from Texas, Randy Neugebauer shouted at Bart Stupak? When did it become okay for crowds to scream the N-word at minority members of Congress? When did it become okay for another member of Congress, Representative Joe Wilson, to shout, “You lie!” to the President of the United States while he was making a speech to a joint session of Congress? When did it become okay for people to go on Twitter and call for the assassination of our president?

I have to wonder what is truly behind this increasing rancor. We’ve had political disagreements in this country before, but it’s been a long time since we’ve seen anything like this. Certainly there were plenty of ticked off people when Dubya was president, but it never rose to this level of discord. Probably the closest thing we have had to this were the war protests of the late sixties and seventies– if we’d had Internet then, we might have gotten out of Viet Nam much sooner than we did.

Much of this must be attributed to the instantaneousness of the Internet– and the anonymity. You can hide behind a fake identity, set up Facebook and Twitter accounts and whip people into all kinds of a frenzy without anybody ever knowing who you actually are. Not only that, but you don’t even have to tell the truth because it’s real hard to sue for libel or slander for things that are said on that vast frontier of lawlessness that is the Internet. Do you really think that the whackos who claim Obama isn’t a US citizen would ever have gotten a foothold if they couldn’t send their lies to everyone with a working email address?

And there are people who have a vested interest in maintaining this frenzy– the Fox Talk Show hosts wouldn’t have near the ratings they do now if they came on the air and told everyone, “Hey, Obama is really a good guy and even though we don’t agree with him on everything, we know he wants what is best for this country.” If Sarah Palin got up and told everybody the truth about issues such as the so-called Obama death squads, she wouldn’t have her lucrative new contract with Fox TV as well as crowds of people urging her to “Run Sarah run!”.

And let’s face it, these guys have a ready audience because the conservatives out there are just plain mad. They’ve been mad for a long time. In fact, I think they might have been born mad. They were mad when Clinton was elected, and they got madder when Obama was elected. They are so mad that they have forgotten that other people  have a right to think differently and vote differently than they, which is what the Liberals did in the last election because they were mad as well. The trouble is, Liberals just don’t get mad as effectively as Conservatives.

What we’ve got is a mob– a large group of crazies who are feeding on each other and getting whipped into a frenzy by savvy manipulators who are out for their own personal gain. As Deep Throat once said,  “Follow the money.”

There is plenty of room for honest disagreement in this country, but when did disagreement get to the point where we can’t even listen to each other? Where we can’t accept that other people have different views that may be as valid as their own? Okay, we get that you don’t like the Health Plan. We get that you are afraid that it is leading to socialism or that you think people should not be required to buy health care or that you think people should take care of themselves and not expect a handout from the government. We disagree, but does that mean it is okay for you to stand up and yell “N—–!” at one of us?

Whether you like it or not, the Health Plan has passed, and as the Liberals who hate the Faith Based Initiative and the Iraq War have learned, it’s real hard to stuff the crickets back in the jar after it’s been opened. (Those conservatives who have been trying to get rid of the Education Department certainly ought to know that!) I suggest that those of you who are opposed to the Health Plan come to the table to discuss what comes next in a rationale manner rather than throwing colossal temper tantrums and acting like two-year-olds. It’s here. Now you need to figure out how to deal with it.

Let’s Face It: Abortion Is a Hard Sell February 20, 2010

Posted by Dindy in abortion, Family Values, health, Religious Right, Right wing, Television.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Let me start this blog with a disclaimer: I strongly support the right of all women to have access to safe and legal abortion. I consider myself to be a feminist, and I abhor almost everything Focus on the Family stands for. However,  my personal opinion is the Women’s Media Center, the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups did more harm than good with their protest against a Super Bowl ad featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother. Without apparently having viewed the ad in advance, Jemhu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center, said:

“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year–an event designed to bring Americans together.”

The protest letter from the Women’s Media Center suggested that CBS should have turned down the ad because of the sponsor, Focus on the Family:

“By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.”

NOW Action Vice President Erin Matson, in a blog on their website shrilled:

“Make no mistake about this ad: it’s offensive to women. Yes, it features Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, who had been advised to have an abortion after a serious illness. Standing alone, it sends the message that all women who give birth are heroes; it sends a message that abortion is always a mistake; and it is insulting to the one in three women in this country who have abortions.”

Well I saw the ad, and I sure didn’t see any of those things. The truth is, if I hadn’t been aware of the furor ahead of time, I wouldn’t have realized it was an anti-abortion ad. The word abortion is never mentioned. Pam Tebow talks about Tim being her miracle baby and says his birth was difficult. She says that she almost lost him several times and added, “With all our family’s been through, we have to be tough.” Tim then comes on and tackles her and she scolds him. “Timmy, I’m trying to tell our story here.” A message comes on the screen telling people to go to the Focus on the Family website for more about the Tim Tebow story, and  Tim asks, “You still worry about me, Mom?” She replies, “Well yeah. You’re not nearly as tough as I am.” The interplay between Tim and his mother is rather sweet. My guess is that the dreaded, so-called anti-abortion message skipped over the heads of most people watching unless they already knew about it.

By protesting so heavily against the ad, the women’s groups only came across as shrill and as seeming to be against the very things they claim to support: freedom of speech and freedom of choice. The posts on Now’s Blog for Equality in which they screeched against the ad pretty much bear this out. One comment said:

“This woman chose life. Why would you be against that? She had the right to make her own personal choice, a choice which opposed the advice of doctors. Isn’t that a success story, that a woman had the right to choose? By your outcry, you send the message that abortion is the only choice you support. Please, don’t do this, it hurts the cause.”

A big problem with the pro-choice movement is that abortion is a hard sell. The anti-abortion groups can show inspirational messages such as the Tim Tebow spot; they can show cute babies and children frolicking, they can plaster billboards with a chubby cheeked toddler saying, “My mother chose life,” and there’s not a real good way to argue against that. The pro-choice people can’t exactly show a picture of a child in a wheelchair with the counter message of, “my mother didn’t have the choice to abort me,” now can they?

Let’s face it folks. Abortion is NOT a good thing. We want less of them. Not more. However the message that came through was that these groups only support abortion and that they are against choice. What the pro-choice groups really need to get across is that NOBODY likes abortion. Presumably NOW doesn’t like it. Ditto the Feminist Majority.  They could have used this ad as a stepping point to show what they do support. They could have said something like,

“Pam Tebow had a choice. We support that. We also support universal access to quality medical care such as what Pam Tebow evidently had. We support easy access to birth control and comprehensive sex education. We support programs that give girls and young women the skills they need not to be victims, not to give in to pressure from their boyfriends to have sex and how to protect themselves against rape and incest. We support programs that give all women access to prenatal care and programs that fight against alcohol abuse and drug addiction in women of child-bearing age as these are things that can affect the health of unborn children. We support programs that teach boys about responsibility so they can learn how to be fathers and not just sperm donors, and we support programs that ensure that no child has to go to bed with an empty stomach.

“We support programs that will move us forward to a day when no woman needs to choose abortion. But we are not there yet and until that day comes, we support safe and legal abortion. We support women. We support families. We support choice.”

The women’s groups had a great opportunity with the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad, and they blew it. Rather than attracting anyone to their cause, they alienated a whole bunch of people and ensured that others who probably wouldn’t have even noticed the ad amidst all the other ads on Super Bowl Sunday paid a great deal of attention to it. They enabled Focus on the Family to take the high road, and that is the last place that this  group deserves to be.

You Can Have Any Result you Want as long as It’s Right January 9, 2010

Posted by Dindy in Evolution, Religious Right, Right wing, Science, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

With their teachings about “curing” homosexuals largely discredited in the US,  three  Christian missionaries went to Uganda. One month after their visit, a largely unknown Ugandan politician introduced a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior- the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. The three American missionaries are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.

Such is the problem when science crosses with ideology– if the results don’t support the ideology, the ideology wins. One big issue that scientists have with Intelligent Design and Creationism is the statement of belief that members and associated researchers are required to sign. Below is the statement from the Creation Research Society.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

This violates one of the basic tenets of scientific research, which is that when the results don’t validate the hypothesis, the hypothesis needs to change.

While religious idealogues are often guilty of this, they are not the only ones. Witness the anti-vaccination groups who refuse to accept the numerous studies that show absolutely no link between autism and vaccines, or the anti-electrical wires groups who refuse to accept the numerous studies showing absolutely no link between cancer and electrical lines.

Sometimes this ideology simply results in bad science. Other times it results in much, much more. In the case of Uganda, the results are ominous, indeed.

Keep Stupak’s Dirty Politican Hands Out of My Uterus December 2, 2009

Posted by Dindy in abortion, Family Values, health, health care reform, Politics, Religious Right, Right wing.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

There are people in this country for whom there is only one issue that matters- abortion. To these people, everything is seen in light of abortion and it colors their view of every other thing that happens. Now these groups are threatening to derail Health Care Reform by using the proposed Stupak Amendment to accomplish what they have been unable to do through legislation and the courts, restrict the access of women in this country to safe, legal abortions.

The Stupak Amendment will actually take away coverage that millions of women already have. Not only does it forbid any coverage for abortion in the public option, it prohibits anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing a health insurance plan that includes abortion. Now you may think that this only affects those who receive the federal subsidy, however the Stupak Amendment  also prohibits private health insurance plans from offering through the exchange a plan that includes abortion coverage to both subsidized and unsubsidized individuals. About 87% of private insurance plans now include abortion coverage. If they plan to participate in the Health Care Exchange proposed by the bill, they will have to drop that coverage.

Stupak supporters whine that they don’t want their tax money to go to support abortions. Folks, my tax money goes every day to support things I don’t approve of. For years my tax money has gone to fighting a completely unjustified war in Iraq. My tax money went to the government bail outs. It currently is going to support dozens of faith-based organizations. When we complete our income taxes every year the IRS doesn’t include a checklist so we can go down the list and pick the uses to which our tax dollars can be put. As citizens of the US, our tax money goes to support whatever Congress wants to spend it on. The anti-abortion wing nuts cannot accept that the majority of people in this country do not agree with them on the abortion issue, so like children who pack up their little toys and go home when they don’t get their way, they are trying to undercut health care reform by threatening to pack up their votes and go home if they don’t get their way about abortion.

It’s a note of irony that one of the reasons Americans give for opposing health care legislation is they don’t want the government to have control over their medical care. Yet, by allowing the Stupak amendment to pass, they will be giving control of their medical care over to United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who care more about fetuses than they do about living, breathing human beings. They don’t want the government making decisions about their medical care, but they are willing to let Bart Stupak make those decisions.

Let Obama and Congress know that you do not want health care reform to come at the cost of the rights you already have. Oppose the Stupak Amendment.

Domestic Militias Fear the WRONG Administration November 27, 2009

Posted by Dindy in Current Events, Right wing.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The domestic militia whackos are rising again. After nearly a decade in which we didn’t hear much about them, now that a Democrat is in president again, they are resurging. The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified at least 50 new right wing militia groups that have been formed in the last two years.

Norm Olson of the Alaska Citizens Militia explains his rationale for Americans arming themselves against the government.

“The federal government can roll into your driveway in the middle of the night and snatch you up and take you away, and you’ll never be seen again.” ~ Associated Press

The last time we saw such activity in the militia groups, another Democrat was president– Bill Clinton. These groups clearly tie democratic presidencies with their fears about government excesses.

So let’s look at this a little bit. I can certainly agree with Mr. Olson that the government should not be able to snatch citizens up in the middle of the night and take them away. I can also agree that our civil liberties are very important. I think I should be able to talk to whomever I want to on the phone without worrying about the government listening in on my private conversations. I also think that I should be able to check whatever books I want to out of the library without the government knowing or caring WHAT I am reading. I think that I should be able to meet with other people without having to worry about whether I am sitting next to a government spy at my rubber chicken dinner. And if I am arrested, I should not be held in prison for years without even knowing what the charges are against me. I think that the government should not be able to go snooping in my bank records, and I certainly don’t want my ISP reporting my internet habits to the Department of Homeland Security.

What’s more, I’m willing to bet that Mr. Olson doesn’t want any of these things either. Yet, it was a Republican Administration, that of George Dubya Bush, that put all these things in place– not only can the government go snooping into your library records, your internet habits and your phone calls, but it no longer even needs a warrant to do so. This was all part of Dubya’s war on terrorism, you know.

Now you would think that, being concerned about the government sneaking around and snooping into their personal business and all, that these right wing militia groups would have been busting out of the woodwork when Dubya was president. But they waited till AFTER he got out of office to start stockpiling their guns and playing soldiers in the backwoods.

Maybe these guys are smarter than I thought. Guess they figured that if they’d gotten themselves together when Dubya was in office, they really WOULD have stood a good chance of being carted away in the middle of the night and never seen again. Now that we have an administration that has SOME modicum of understanding of civil liberties, Mr. Olson can go play soldiers in the backwoods without much real threat of the government coming in and spiriting them away.