The Congressional Leadersheep
OK, that headline might be a tad extreme, but given what Bush & Co want, is it? With the Dems wimping out (and Repubs long ago dropping any pretense to their old small, non-intrusive government goals), what do us citizens who don’t want our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms deleted to do?
Terrorism Policies Split Democrats
A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.
The Democrats’ failure to rein in wiretapping without warrants, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or restore basic legal rights such as habeas corpus for terrorism suspects has opened the party’s leaders to fierce criticism from some of their staunchest allies — on Capitol Hill, among liberal bloggers and at interest groups.
The American Civil Liberties Union is running Internet advertisements depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) as sheep.
“Bush wanted more power to eavesdrop on ordinary Americans, and we just followed along. I guess that’s why they call us the Democratic leadersheep,” say the two farm animals in the ad, referring to Congress’s passage of legislation granting Bush a six-month extension and expansion of his warrantless wiretapping program.
“We can do this, but you have to keep in mind Republicans care more about catching Democrats than catching terrorists,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “They have spent years taking Roosevelt’s notion that we have nothing to fear but fear itself and given us nothing but fear.”
#32 is just trolling for a reaction. Ignore….
#33–I agree that our fate is largely being decided by economic issues, but I also view the police state question as part of the economic equation. We are headed down the path of corporatism, in which corporate cartels have increasing power over our lives, and this corporate structure is basically a global, stateless apparatus which is replacing sovereign national governments. I believe that the financial bubble is coming to an end, and that some serious austerity is being planned by people who believe in the overpopulation/materials shortages ideas of Malthus. The economic policies the global financier / cartel crowd have in mind will be much easier to implement with a police state.
OK – to clarify – US citizens and those who want to live just like them are the most important since the American lifestyle of private property ownership is the end goal.
#38 – iGW,
You continue to disappoint me with your inane responses. Now you suggest that there is one right way for everyone on the planet to live. I don’t understand how anyone can believe that, despite the large number of highly successful religions that preach just that. Amazing what homo sapiens is capable of convincing itself despite all evidence to the contrary. I wonder if I could convince you of the benefits of prefrontal lobotomy. For that matter, I sometimes wonder if someone else already has. Personally, I’d rather have a free bottle in front of me.
37–Birch==IMHO–you are still looking “too much” at the wrong thing. It is economics that will win out over all. Economics will get you what a police state never will. A police state cannot deny what economics demands.
So as the worlds resources get competed over by a growing lower middle class around the world, GOUSA standard of living will decline- – -no matter what. If we give that trend a 100 on a scale of “negative impacts on the ability to exercise freedom” , what value would you give warrantless wire taps on folks calling overseas?
Did the ACLU run ads against Republicans? Why not?
#41 – I can’t speak for the current crop of Republicans… But the mission of the ACLU embodies the core philosophy of America’s greatest conservative minds. I’m always amazed when the right criticizes the ACLU.
41–Mike, I don’t understand your point as well as OFTLO does. ACLU is not a political party. The don’t run ads. The file public interest lawsuits against violations of Constitutional Rights.
Are you implying the Republican party is against Constitutional Rights?
HEY!!!!!!!!!!!! Why isn’t the ACLU running ads against the Repugs?
#17 – Interesting – I look around and see the average lifestyle getting better each day, not worse.
Check the 2005 census. Indexed for inflation the average American earns less than in 2000.
I guess when you look around the average lifestyle is getting better each day in your suburban gated community.
Re: ACLU side topic.
AFAIK, they defend the constitution. I’m amazed that anyone thinks they a leftist organization. If our constitution is left, then they are, I guess. But, I haven’t yet heard anyone, even the most hard-line neocon, actually admit that they truly want to throw out the constitution. Some pols clearly do want to get rid of it, but even they don’t say so openly. So, why are the neocons against the ACLU? Anyone out there neocon enough to answer?
#32 “Complain all you want. This is still the greatest nation that ever existed and it’s citizens are the most important people on the planet.”
You must be a Roman
Dems and Repubs are two sides of the same coin. They are distinctive and dissimilar but, in reality, they are never far from each other. They both know, deep down, that these tactics work and will not vote them down.
If you really disagree with all of the Washington rhetoric and posturing then vote for Ron Paul. I know I will be.
Misanthropic Scott – the reason the ACLU is considered Left is because of their selective defense of the Constitution. 99% of the cases they defend reflect liberal agendas. They will defend convicted felons’ civil liberties to the end of time but will rarely, if ever, defend gun owners’ constitutional right to bear arms.
Those sheep sure look purty!
#40-bobbo==I’m not sure we actually disagree, but we might. Economics, as practiced by the international banking crowd, certainly has devastated our economy in ways that could not have been accomplished by police-state measures, but as the bubble vaporizes more and more people are going to be thrown on the scrap heap, and some of them will not go quietly. The purpose of the police state is to keep opposition to these fascist programs under control. The financiers implement the policies, and use the police state measures to keep the people in line. It goes well beyond warrantless wiretaps.
#48 – They will defend convicted felons’ civil liberties to the end of time but will rarely, if ever, defend gun owners’ constitutional right to bear arms.
So what? Read their mission statement. They are not a gun right organization. That’s what the NRA is for. The ACLU specializes just like they do…
And the notion that they case history reflects a liberal agenda is laughable. They defended the American Nazi Party against the City of Skokie, for cryin’ out loud.
OhForTheLoveOf –
Yes, the ACLU does occasionally take on unusual cases such as defending the Nazi party. That does not make it a Conservative group.
It has been the ACLU’s modus operandi to take on predominantly liberal causes. On some rare occasions, they take on conservative cases, but they are few and far between and only when they do not interfere or conflict with their other liberal litigations. They do it so they can make the dubious claim that they are in the center when they clearly are not.
And, if their mission statement is to defend the Constitution, then they SHOULD
Oops, hit the wrong button. To continue:
… then they SHOULD defend gun rights cases. They are opposed to gun ownership rights (part of the Constitution, whether they like it or not) and would rather defend the civil rights of felons.
They have a selective agenda when it comes to the Constitution. Protecting the Second Amendment is not on that agenda. Defending the Constitution, my butt.
Mark T.,
The ACLU is clear on their reading of the right to bear arms. Their lawyers have determined that it is not an individual right. Therefore, states have the right to limit it.
Further, I think even you will agree that there must be limits on the right to bear arms. Clearly you don’t believe we should all be entitled to buy tactical nuclear weapons, right?
So, what we end up haggling about is which arms people should and should not be allowed to own.
You should read their public statement. It explains their views quite clearly.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
You may not agree, of course. However, you should at least read the statement to understand the issue.
GOD BLESS THE ACLU:
http://tinyurl.com/g3b2a
Why doesn’t the ACLU support an individual’s unlimited right to keep and bear arms?
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for “ignoring the Second Amendment” and refusing to fight for the individual’s right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
GOD BLESS THE ACLU.
50–Birch==no, we don’t disagree. Just one of emphasis.
The new rules on combatting terrorism, eg, warantless wiretaps on people making overseas phone calls, will not help a fascist state crack down on the poor huddled masses fighting for their scrap of bread. The State already has all the power it needs to clamp down on that==eg, don’t respond to Katrina. Subtle stuff.
bobbo, the Supreme Court begs to differ with the ACLU’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that it applies to individuals. The ACLU’s position is invalid.
#57,
It took me less than 15 seconds of googling around to decisively prove you wrong.
U.S. v. Miller
#59,
It was a little harder to crush your argument. I took my almost three minutes to crush forever and totally your POV. You linked to Senator Jim Inhofe (the problem with tiny url…) blog and the only Senator that took more money from Oil Companies than him is Texas Senator John Cornyn.
#59 – Stars & Bars,
As long as your liberty doesn’t involve choice, perhaps. For those of us that want real freedom and a bit of regulation of corporations to keep them from making serfs out of us, Kucinich seems best.
And, oh yeah, some people can actually tell science from crap when they read it. If you want to learn about global warming, always check your references on scholar.google.com. Peer review may not be perfect, but it’s better than blog posts by senators.
My mistake, it was a D.C. District Court that recently re-affirmed the right of individuals to own and bear firearms.
However, the Supreme Court has, as far as I know, refused to rehear this case as with virtually all similar cases throughout the years.
If the Supreme Court decides to hear the D.C. case then the vague and wildly interpreted US vs Miller case may finally be more thoroughly explored. Until that time, the D.C. Court decision is valid law. Individuals have the right to own firearms per the Second Amendment.
My contention is this – Why is the ACLU so vehemently pursuing overturning an individual’s right to own and bear arms? Because they are following a leftist agenda. They are liberals, plain and simple.
#61,
10 minutes and a potty break later, do you think I should post the entire take down of EVERY ONE OF THE SOURCES, on Inhofe’s web site? It seems that site is old, and as it turns out, every study he cited was funded by the petroleum industry. So not only is Inhofe bought and paid for by big oil, but so are all of his sources.
The title of that article may as well be – Press Release – Big oil doesn’t think that their product is damaging the environment.
#23
“The ones who are fucking things up aren’t getting blow jobs from fat interns, they’re soliciting them in the men’s rooms with their “wide stance” style of relieving themselves.”
The last time I saw on the news it was a Republican doing that.
#62,
Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem??? There is no right to bear arms. Never has been, never will be. Congress has an absolute right to regulate weapons, in theory at least, that means, if the meanie poopy pants lefties want to gang up and take pry your guns from your cold dead hands, there is nothing legally stopping us. All we have to do is pass a bill called “Pry the weapons from the cold dead hands of republicans act of 2008” and it is a done deal.
Deal with it.
Mark T.
You also seem to have a big problem understanding the difference between not fighting for a perceived right and fighting against it. I think you need to learn to think a little more critically.
#51, OFTLO,
AND the favorite of Radio-head shut-ins around the country, Rush Limbaugh. Seems he had that little thing about the DA wanting to see his Doctor’s records. Then quick as you could say OXYCODONE, Rush was in rehab. But the ACLU went to court on a Friend of the Court brief to argue the records were beyond subpoena.