Ron Paul on Torture

http://www.dailypaul.com/

A Sad Sign of What Our Country Is Becoming

A man who refused to have his vehicle searched at an Arizona highway checkpoint was tazed and beaten by police.



It is incredibly tragic when citizens who are attempting to defend their Constitutional rights are treated as criminals and abused by the very individuals how have pledged to "serve and protect" our society. I love that he goes so far as to name the names of the people who tormented him. The majority of law enforcement officers are good people, but there are a handful of thugs like these individuals who ruin their image. These people need to be fired, and I certainly hope the man sues the government for this unconstitutional action. I'm sure this won't make the mainstream news, which is a shame because this type of thing needs to get out to more people. Anyone who says the man is an idiot and should have just let them search the car doesn't appreciate how important our freedoms are in this country.

The scary part is I drove through one of these checkpoints just last week in New Mexico while on vacation. Orange cones lined the highway diverting everyone into the checkpoint. I pulled up and an officer asked me if they could search the trunk. When I told the officer that I could only open the trunk with the key from the ignition, he had me pull off to the side. I was got out, opened the trunk, and then stood off to the side with one officer watching me while two other officers and a dog rummaged through the trunk (my friends Daniel and Perry were sitting in the car the entire time). At the time, part of me really wanted to protest that they could not search my vehicle without probably cause, but I held back because I didn't to drag my friends into a mess like that, and we were trying to get to White Sands National Monument before dark. I'm glad there are people like this man out there who have more courage than I do to stand up to these violations of our civil rights.

Wired.com: U.S. Surveillance Society Running Rampant

From Wired.com's Threat Level blog:

If you think you're being watched, you're probably right.

The American Civil Liberties Union posted a website Monday showing that government-financed surveillance cameras are running rampant across the United States.

All the while, studies suggest they do nothing to cut down on violent crime. San Francisco, for example, has spent $700,000 for dozens of public cameras, but a University of California study just concluded there was "no evidence" they curtailed violent crime.

"Violent incidents do not decline in areas near the cameras relative to areas further away," added the study, which noted the cameras helped police bring charges against six people accused of felony property crimes. "We observe no decline in violent crimes occurring in public places."

But the report did show that, over the past two years, property crimes such as burglary and muggings dropped an estimated 24 percent in areas within 100 feet of San Francisco camera locations.

The ACLU's website, "You Are Being Watched," shows a map of the 50 U.S. states with links to news accounts about where surveillance cameras are in each state. The federal government has given state and local governments $300 million in grants to fund an ever-growing array of cameras.

Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program, said in a telephone interview that, while the cameras have helped nab suspects, he believes they provide a false sense of security.

"It's the illusion of security ... public authorities like to give the impression they are doing something about crime and terrorism," Steinhardt said.

He said it is impossible to quantify exactly how many government-backed surveillance cameras are in the public right of way, but they are in virtually every U.S. state.

Two questions posed on the ACLU site ask: "Do we want a society where an innocent individual can't walk down the street without being considered a potential criminal?" and "Do we want a society where people are comfortable with constant surveillance?"

everything gets written down

Inside Operation Highlander: the NSA's Wiretapping of Americans Abroad

Telecom Spying Amnesty Unconstitutional, EFF Tells Court

ACLU Says Recent NSA Spying Allegations Bolster its Lawsuit Against FISA Bill

who needs action when you've got words

Sarah Palin: "Place In Hell Reserved For Women Who Don't Support Other Women"

Funny, as someone who is supposedly such a good Christian, she missed the whole lesson on who hell is meant for. Not only did she misquote Madeline Albright, but apparently she thinks statements like that are intelligent and appropriate things to say. Yet I'm fairly certain she wasn't supporting Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.

"Okay, now, thank you so much for receiving that well. I didn't know how that was gonna go over. And now, California, let's see what a comment like I just made, how that is turned into whatever it'll be turned into tomorrow with the newspaper."

The media doesn't need to do much to make you look stupid, Sarah, when you give them idiotic comments like that.

but gollum, the evil one, crept up and slipped away

Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head.

don't need no more lies

I haven't posted in awhile, but recent events have made a new rant inevitable.

Obama and McCain gave me further incentive to vote third-party when they both voted--along with Joe Biden--in favor of the revamped $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Far from helping end our economic woes, this move will simply push our country closer to recession and even possible depression. The government cannot keep buying bad debt, propping up failing industries, and giving handouts. Look what happens: now California is saying it needs $7 billion from the government. Our own states are asking for bailouts!

The worst part is that the new version of this bill is absolutely riddled with government earmarks and "pork barrel" spending. Some of those "important" groups receiving the nearly $150 billion in tax breaks, government money, or tax credits:

• Makers of real-wood arrow shafts
• Puerto Rican & Virgin Island rum makers
• Auto racing tracks
  
• Exxon Valdez victims
  
• Movie studios shooting films inside the U.S.
• Wool research, and more...
  

Voting for this bill exposes Obama and McCain as they hypocrytes they truly are. Both have pledged to eliminate earmarks as president; McCain has made it a cornerstone of his campaign. Additionally, McCain spoke out in favor of a smaller government, decreasing spending, and less government regulation. Well that's the exact opposite of the bill you just voted for, John.

The truth of the matter is that these men don't care one iota about you or me. Every poll I've seen shows the American public is very against the bailout, but the politicians vote for it anyway. If this is Obama's idea of "change," it looks like things will be staying just as they are.



And I can't believe the gaul of John McCain. He votes in favor of the bill, then uses the excuse "that's the way the system works" when confronted with all this useless pork that he just voted for. Then he says the President needs to take leadership and veto bills like the one he just voted for if the system is going to ever be fixed! Sorry John, you cannot have your cake and eat it to. You cannot vote for a bill that is saturated in earmarks and then turn around to gripe and complain about the corruption in Washington that let's this type of thing happen. YOU, John McCain, are that corruption. You are a hypocritical, lying, manipulating snake. And you sold your principles for a shot at the presidency.

A voice of reason:


We're past the point of fixing our economy without anything bad happening. We need to suck it up and deal with some short-term problems, instead of prolonging this and making things worse.

turned the power to the have-nots

I meant to post this last week, but a lack of time and then the power outage delayed it. Ron Paul was recently on CNN urging his supporters not to vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama but to support third-party candidates, such as Bob Barr or Ralph Nader. Here's the speech Paul gave, in which his does a good job explaining how our political system is so slanted against anyone from outside the two major parties. He also addresses why it's time to abandon the idea of voting for "the leser of two evils" and instead vote third party in an attempt to shake up the politcal landscape.



And here's an interview with Paul and Nader on CNN talking about the same subject (and featuring CNN hack Wolf Blitzer):

say the right things when electioneering

For anyone that actual pays attention to real news, it is becoming pretty obvious the facade that Sarah Palin is a "maverick," reformer, and fiscal conservative is crumbling fast. One of Palin's most repeated claims is that she said "Thanks, but no thanks" to Congress over the "Bridge to Nowhere"--a claim which has been overwhelming proven false. Not only was Palin originally for this pork-barrel project, but when Congress killed the bridge, she kept the several hundred million dollars in earmarks that had already been appropriated for it. Yeah, she's a real maverick.

Lest anyone complain about me only choosing one source, here's a wide variety of reporting issue:

The conservative Wall Street Journal was one of the first to widely report that Palin's claims were false.

Even FOX News(!) reported her support of the bridge project and the huge number of earmarks requested by Alaska:



CNN's take:


MSNBC's Keith Olbermann:


Olbermann on newer Palin developments, including that she used government funds set aside for travel expenses while living at home:


Then there's the story about how she promoted the Alaskan National Guard General who originally criticized her and then changed his tune.

And just for giggles, here's Jon Stewart comparing how different McCain and Bush really are, based on McCain's convention speech:

it starts when you're always afraid

Terrorism
-noun

1.	the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2.	the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3.	a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

This video is disgusting. The Republicans have shown time and time again that they have no qualms about using the September 11th attacks as a tool to advance their political agenda. John McCain clearly has decided to take up one of President Bush's favorite tactics: using the American people's memories of 9/11 to frighten them into giving the government more power to curtail civil liberties and increase the powers of the executive branch. What McCain is basically saying in that video is "vote for me or you'll die." Downright shameful.

What kind of government do we have when those in power repeatedly show graphic footage of American civilians being killed in order to frighten Americans into giving up their freedoms, but banning footage of American soldiers' coffins coming home from Iraq so people won't get discouraged about the war?

old enough to repay but young enough to sell

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr was on The Colbert Report yesterday. It was a decent interview; not a lot of substance, but that seems to be how a lot of Colbert's interviews go. But hopefully Barr will reap the benefits of the "Colbert Bump".

won't get fooled again

• Senator Reid Says Barrack Obama Will Revisit FISA If Elected President. - Then why not oppose it in the first place?! Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
  

• Obama Would Consider Using Military Action Against Iran; "No Options Off The Table." - Apparently Obama's definition of "change" is to use the same foreign policy as the Bush administration. This is despite the fact that polls show the majority of Americans oppose a military solution for Iran. Sadly, most of these Americans will still vote for either Obama or McCain, even though these candidates are not interested out the will of the American people.

Part of me still wants to believe that Obama would do something to help turn America around; I have no hope of McCain doing so. That said, I'm not naive enough to actually vote for him.

the politics of greed

This still isn't getting any easier to swallow. John Turley does an excellent job of laying out why the passage of the FISA bill is a horrible blight on the history of this country (this video was aired on July 8, a day before the bill was passed). Quite simply, the spineless Democrats are allowing Bush and his Republican cronies to cover up the fact that the President is guilty of a felony--a felony he committed at least thirty times! From the clip:

"What the Democrats are doing here with the White House is they're trying to conceal a crime that is hiding in plain view. ... Nobody wants to have a confrontation over the fact that the president committed a felony. ... That's a very inconvenient fact right now in Washington."

"The Democrats have learned well from Bush," Turley said in amazement. "They're just going to change the rules. ... It's otherworldly. ... I am completely astonished by Senator Obama's position -- and obviously disappointed. All of these senators need to respect us enough not to call it a compromise. It's a cave-in."

"It's like all those stories where someone is assaulted on the street and a hundred witnesses do nothing," continued Turley. "In this case, the Fourth Amendment is going to be eviscerated tomorrow, and a hundred people are going to watch it happen because it's just not their problem. ... There's not an ounce of principle, not an ounce of public interest in this legislation."

Turley added that even though the telecoms could still be prosecuted criminally, it's unlikely to happen. "The fix is in," he concluded. "Tomorrow night, there's going to be a lot of celebrating among telecom lobbyists. ... What we will lose tomorrow, it's something very precious."

This country has come a long way since Watergate in how it deals with Presidential felonies and unfortunately the change is not for the better.

watching with their shiny satellites

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Today the Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill to expand Federal domestic surveillance powers and grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies for aiding the federal government in spying on American citizens.

I'm furious. Our elected officials in the federal government have made it clear what their priorities are, and it isn't upholding the Constitution or looking out for the rights of the American people. I will never vote for the reelection of Congressman Chabot, Senator Voinovich, or anyone else who supported this act. In fact, I plan to write both of their offices and tell them this. It's not much, but it's something. I'm tired of people saying that there's nothing that can be done about it. The solution is actually fairly simple: stop voting for them!! These people have willfully betrayed the Constitution and the American people. In my mind they are traitors and should be dealt with as such.

We elect people to go to Washington to speak and vote on our behalf; anyone whose votes show their lack of respect for the principles this country was founded on does not speak for me. Senator Obama ultimately voted in favor of the bill, which is the last straw for my declining support of him. He does not care about the Constitution. He does not care about the rights of the American people. His "change" is a lie. I do not want him to be my president. Even Hillary Clinton voted against this bill!

At least John McCain hasn't tried to hide the fact that he's a disciple of Bush and will unapologetically continue to expand the executive branch while eroding civil liberties. I've come to the conclusion that Barack Obama may actually be worse--he's guilty of manipulating people into believe in a movement towards change, and once the Democratic nomination was secured, he's shown his true colors.

Not that it ultimately matters which one of them is elected; they'll both continue to expand the powers of the executive branch at the expense of checks and balances, the Constitution, and our civil liberties. Not that any of those things are important to Americans--not if they can continue to grow fat and watch reality t.v. with the false illusion of safety. Getting angry and actually taking action requires too much thought. We are sheep, and I fear we're letting ourselves be led to the slaughter.

democratic elections under martial law

George Stephanopoulos should be ashamed of his slanted questions and arrogant attitude, but what can one except from someone in the mainstream media?

I've been hesitant to support Bob Barr for president, mainly because I wasn't sure how sincere he was in his political beliefs. Barr was once a die-hard conservative Republican who espouses a libertarian philosophy (the video explains this in more detail). But since he realistically has no real shot at winning the presidency, I feel confident that his conversion from neo-con to libertarian is fairly genuine--and since the evolution of my own political beliefs is fairly similar, I'd be a hypocrite to hold that against him.

I've been feeling that a third-party vote is the way to go this November. Voting for McCain is completely out of the question--as cliched as it sounds after hearing it over and over, he really is running on a platform that sounds exactly like four more years of Bush. I've been growing more disillusioned with Obama--especially after his FISA flip-flop--and I'm sadly realizing that all his inspirational speeches and talk of "change" are nothing but more empty political change. Since the two major political parties are essentially one and the same--and care nothing for the Constitution--I doubt that I can vote for even more of them in good conscience. It makes me happy that I stuck with my guns and voted for Ron Paul in the primary.

Stephanopoulos might be right about Barr taking votes from McCain and helping Obama win, but since one of those two has to win, I'd rather take a chance with Obama. Neither option looks promising. That said, after feeling guilty for the past few years that I helped reelect a president who is one of the worst violators ever of our Constitution, I don't want a vote for either McCain or Obama on my conscience. That way I can maybe take some small satisfaction--offer a smug "I-told-you-so"--as our country continues circling the drain towards a bankrupt police-state.

white house shadows who hide behind closed doors

The Democratic-controlled Congress helped the Bush administration strike another blow against the Constitution today when it voted to grant telecommunication companies retroactive immunity for spying on American citizens for the federal government, and broadening the domestic surveillance powers of the executive branch.

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation," said Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act in 2001. "The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home."
---

California lawmaker Barbara Lee referred to the days of J. Edgar Hoover and concluded, "This bill scares me."

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Washington) slammed retroactive amnesty, asking "Don't we realize there are some lines we should never cross?"

But the short debate and quick scheduling made it clear that the House leadership was confident the measure would easily pass, thus sparing conservative Democrats from campaign ads in the fall attacking them for not being tough on surveillance.

I don't see how someone can argue that this isn't a horrible thing. By definition, the very fact that Congress had to vote to grant telecom companies retroactive immunity means they were breaking the law; which also means that whoever ordered the companies to break the law--the Bush administration--are guilty as well.

Even if trust the Bush administration and don't think they would use these powers for ill, how can you be okay with the precedent this sets? All it takes is for a would-be tyrant to get into office, and all the groundwork has already been put into place. This should have nothing to do with allegiances to political parties.

Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats who have continued to give the Bush administration a free pass to violate the Constitution should be ashamed, not to mention removed from office. They are either cowards for being too afraid to oppose Bush, or they are crooks and villains guilty of greed and a lust for more power at the expense of our liberties--in other words, they are cut from the same cloth as Bush, Cheney, and the rest. It's time to start holding our elected leaders accountable; they are in Washington to look after our interests, not their own. Steve Chabot will never get another vote of mine until he stops toeing the Republican Party line and starts voting for the Constitution. Even Barack Obama disappointingly seems to be too afraid to disagree with the Democratic majority. Some "change" that is. It's truly a sad state of affairs when Dennis Kucinich is one of the most rational, patriotic politicians in the federal government by actually standing up in defense of the Constitution.



Why are we so willing to impeach a president for lying about oral sex, but not for repeatedly violating the Constitution? Which one of these actions truly represents "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

I think George Orwell could see the future when he wrote 1984, he was just off the mark by about twenty-five years.

revolution crawls all over you

a country's soul that reads post no bills

I hear many people complaining these days about the state of politics in our country. Never fear, boys and girls, for democracy is alive and well in America!! That's right, we have no reason to worry when our altruistic and trustworthy elected representatives hold secret, clandestine meetings to discuss bills about spying on their own constituents. That's always been my favorite part of the Constitution, the section that talks about how the government is to be held completely unaccountable for its actions and should violate the civil liberties of its citizens as frequently as possible.

On a serious note, let's hope the Democrats grow a backbone for this new bill and maybe they can fix some of the damage that's been done by all the unconstitutional, warrantless surveillance that has been going on. Naturally, Bush has promised to veto any bill that would curb his surveillance powers at home. After all, why in the world would he want to give up some power for the sake of something as unimportant as freedom and liberty?

Edit: Did you also know the U.S. can and does search and download the data from any laptop entering the country? Fantastic. Apparently that whole needing a search warrant thing doesn't apply to your laptop in an airport.

just a victim of your fear

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

I finally saw the first couple episodes of HBO's John Adams miniseries. It's pretty great so far; this may be Paul Giamatti's finest role yet. The supporting cast is fantastic as well, especially Laura Linney as Abigail Adams, David Morse as George Washington, and Tom Wilkinson as Benjamin Franklin. The show is a good reminder that our founding fathers did not start out seeking a war for independence, but to legally and peacefully secure their rights. Only when all avenues for a peaceful revolution were closed did they resort to violent insurrection. It is also a great reminder than American success was not a foregone conclusion; in fact the odds were strongly against it. I haven't read historian David McCullough's biography on John Adams that the miniseries is based on, but his book 1776 is a great study on the first year of the war.

While watching this show, I cannot help but wonder what our founding fathers would think of our country now. Unlike modern day leaders, these men were truly risking their lives by going to war; failure would have meant certain death for treason. It was a risk they were willing to take for the sake of liberty. The possibility of losing their property, their families, and their lives was less important to them than living without their naturally, unalienable rights. Meanwhile, today we are content to sit idly by as our government gradually strips away our rights and civil liberties under the guise of protecting us from terrorism. I cannot help but believe that the men who founding our nation are rolling in their graves as the government they created passes legislation that allows it to spy on its own innocent citizens. What is worse is that we are so seized by fear that we have decided that safety is more important to us than freedom. It's sad that we have strayed so far from the beliefs of our forefathers.

(Justin Hall had a good post about his thoughts on John Adams which you can read here)

the song in your ear or the book in your hand

I'm much more comfortable with Barack Obama's take on the relationship between religion and politics than I am with someone like Mike Huckabee's. It's refreshing to see someone who professes to be a Christian focusing on social justice issues, rather than just beating on issues like gay marriage and intelligent design in schools over and over and over. I am disappointed by his pro-choice views, but when was the last time a pro-life candidate really made a strong effort to do something about abortion anyway?

I really don't understand how the Democrats are so stupid that they'd even consider nominating Hillary Clinton over Obama. I've always been honest about Ron Paul's incredibly slim chance of getting elected (despite his enormous popularity on the internet), and there is no way I could vote for someone like John McCain--who openly supports continuing the war in Iraq for another one hundred years--so I can only hope that the Democrats realize what a horrible idea it would be to nominate Clinton. After Ron Paul, in my mind Barack Obama seems to be the only other electable candidate.

(For some reason the video seems to overlap the sidebar when I view the page in Firefox, but it is normal size in Internet Explorer)