nate895
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 12,091
Obama was, or at least they had a shot of him shaking McAmnesty's hand.
I was disgusted.
Yesterday, 68 Senators violated their oaths of office
- Thread starter CurtisLow
- Start date
Obama was, or at least they had a shot of him shaking McAmnesty's hand.
I was disgusted.
tommyzDad
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 926
Idiot: I forgot it has to go to the House! Gotta go, gotta write the Wolf!!!
Makes you wonder what they're planning...
Companion to the H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007?
S. 2248: FISA Amendments Act of 2007
Bill Status
Introduced: Oct 26, 2007
Sponsor: Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV]
Status: Passed Senate (100% of Republicans supporting, 60% of Democrats opposing.)
This bill has been passed in the Senate. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the House. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the House, rather than on this particular bill.
Section 102 -
States that: (1) FISA shall be the exclusive means for targeting U.S. persons in order to acquire foreign intelligence, whether such persons are inside or outside the United States, except in cases where specific statutory authorization exists to obtain such communications without an order under FISA; and (2) chapters 119 (Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications) and 121 (Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access) of the federal criminal code and FISA shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and interception of domestic communications may be conducted.
Companion to the H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007?
S. 2248: FISA Amendments Act of 2007
Bill Status
Introduced: Oct 26, 2007
Sponsor: Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV]
Status: Passed Senate (100% of Republicans supporting, 60% of Democrats opposing.)
This bill has been passed in the Senate. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the House. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the House, rather than on this particular bill.
Section 102 -
States that: (1) FISA shall be the exclusive means for targeting U.S. persons in order to acquire foreign intelligence, whether such persons are inside or outside the United States, except in cases where specific statutory authorization exists to obtain such communications without an order under FISA; and (2) chapters 119 (Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications) and 121 (Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access) of the federal criminal code and FISA shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and interception of domestic communications may be conducted.
But something like this sits dead in the water:
H.R. 3305: Anti-Terrorism Act of 2007
To provide for the safety of United States aviation and the suppression of terrorism.
Sponsor: Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX](no cosponsors)
SEC. 2. AVIATION SAFETY AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department or agency of the Federal Government shall prohibit any pilot, copilot, or navigator of an aircraft, or any law enforcement personnel specifically detailed for the protection of that aircraft, from carrying a firearm.
H.R. 3305: Anti-Terrorism Act of 2007
To provide for the safety of United States aviation and the suppression of terrorism.
Sponsor: Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX](no cosponsors)
SEC. 2. AVIATION SAFETY AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department or agency of the Federal Government shall prohibit any pilot, copilot, or navigator of an aircraft, or any law enforcement personnel specifically detailed for the protection of that aircraft, from carrying a firearm.
me3
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,985
We need a citizen watch organization, that will pound the letters to the editor and other local media for the constituents of each of these Senators, exposing their vote on the bill, and the consequences of the bill.
Small radio ad campaigns, and cheaply produced flyers as well.
All politics is local. Attack and expose them in their home districts.
Small radio ad campaigns, and cheaply produced flyers as well.
All politics is local. Attack and expose them in their home districts.
And spoken like a good little clueless moron. Let's see, did you actually argue against any of my points? Why of course not, just a blatant appeal to emotion. Try harder next time kiddo.
kigol
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 696
downright scary
slantedview
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,114
My senators voted against it. They're not perfect, but at least they got it right this time.
AlbemarleNC0003
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 843
sad that the Dems are more conservative on this issue than the "conservative" Republicans
It's only because Bush wanted the immunity. The Democrats don't give a damn about us either.
MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 6,011
It's not so common sense if you're more concerned with governments than terrorists. While we're doing a liberty/safety analysis here, take a guess on who killed more people in the last century... governments killing their own people, or terrorists killing anyone?
This retro-active immunity crap is absolutely wrong. WTF? overnment is supposed to be protecting our rights, not encouraging companies to stomp on them.
ultimaonliner
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 227
We need to mail a copy of the Bill of Rights to each of those congressmen who voted aye.
all of them are spineless turds. Where is Dodd now? He alone could have shelved this if he really wanted to. THe democrats could have shelved this, they had the power. This is another one of those we feed from the same trough votes. They are all bought and paid for, and you can write letters until you are blue in the face and it won't amount to a hill of beans.
ValidusCustodiae
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,258
Just sent this to Richard Burr (R-NC):
I have written to you before in a similar instance where
you ignored the Constitution and sided with the President.
It was when you voted for the Military Commissions Act of
2007 which unconstitutionally allows the President to hold
secret military trials in which the defendants have
basically no rights whatsoever. The argument you will
probably use is that such secrecy helps the President keep
Americans safe. If this is true, then amend the
Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of just ignoring
it as you have with S. 2248 (Protect America Act). This
is the reason I am writing you today. Not only have you
granted the President the ability to eavesdrop on the
conversations of law abiding Americans without a warrant,
but to add insult to injury, you have granted retroactive
immunity from criminal prosecution to telecommunications
companies which obviously broke the law or they would need
no immunity.
I am not sure if you will be running to represent N.C.
again in the U.S. Senate. While I applaud some of your
stands and certain votes you have made, most of your votes
have been in favor of unconstitutional increases in the
size of federal government. Usually the excuse is that
such increases are necessary to keep Americans safe.
Isn't this the same argument the British were using during
the colonial era which sparked Patrick Henry to declare in
the church in Appamattox, "Give me liberty, or give me
death!"?
Whether or not ignoring the Constitution is the best idea
because it keeps us safe, how can you reconcile your oath
of office with your actions since assuming that office?
You swore an oath to defend and uphold the CONSTITUTION,
not George W. Bush's very un-Republican expansion of
federal government.
You are a member of Congress that has failed, along with
99% of the rest, to honor your oath of office. At one
point, I would have considered voting for you because of
the few (and I stress few) stands you have taken against
the dissolution of our civil liberties. That time has
passed. I must admit that a big-tax, big-spend,
socialistic democrat who respects civil liberties would be
a preferrable choice to you, sir. This is coming from
someone who understands deeply the problems with the
socialist movement and the flaws in liberal ideaology. I
am a die hard conservative. I charge that you, sir, are
not, or you would have done your best to conserve the
original intent of the Constitution.
The leadership of the Republican party is talking about
the impact that Ron Paul has made. The GOP leadership is
realizing that they cannot possibly continue to win
elections without appealing to those libertarian-leaning
true conservatives. Besides Ron Paul, our choices in this
Presidential election are between Amnesty-Campaign Finance
Reform McCain and Tax Hike subsidies for Illegals
Huckabee. Abandon the conservative principles that has
kept the Republican Party alive, Goldwater conservatism,
and naturally the party is going to fall apart. Despite
numerous attempts by the GOP establishment to marginalize
or thwart Ron Paul's campaign, he has managed to win 2nd
in some very RED states.
I realize you're a busy man, so I will close by saying
that tyranny is ancient, and freedom and liberty are very
new in this world. Will you stand with the founders who
would be absolutely disgusted that their Constitutional
amendment process is totally ignored? Or will you stand
with the despots of both parties who have decided big
government is all fine and dandy, as long as they have
some control over it? History will record the decisions
that you and others make.
Thank you for your time and what service you have done.
From a freedom loving American patriot whose skin crawls
when his elected leaders ignore their oaths, that's
probably the nicest thing I can say.
I have written to you before in a similar instance where
you ignored the Constitution and sided with the President.
It was when you voted for the Military Commissions Act of
2007 which unconstitutionally allows the President to hold
secret military trials in which the defendants have
basically no rights whatsoever. The argument you will
probably use is that such secrecy helps the President keep
Americans safe. If this is true, then amend the
Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of just ignoring
it as you have with S. 2248 (Protect America Act). This
is the reason I am writing you today. Not only have you
granted the President the ability to eavesdrop on the
conversations of law abiding Americans without a warrant,
but to add insult to injury, you have granted retroactive
immunity from criminal prosecution to telecommunications
companies which obviously broke the law or they would need
no immunity.
I am not sure if you will be running to represent N.C.
again in the U.S. Senate. While I applaud some of your
stands and certain votes you have made, most of your votes
have been in favor of unconstitutional increases in the
size of federal government. Usually the excuse is that
such increases are necessary to keep Americans safe.
Isn't this the same argument the British were using during
the colonial era which sparked Patrick Henry to declare in
the church in Appamattox, "Give me liberty, or give me
death!"?
Whether or not ignoring the Constitution is the best idea
because it keeps us safe, how can you reconcile your oath
of office with your actions since assuming that office?
You swore an oath to defend and uphold the CONSTITUTION,
not George W. Bush's very un-Republican expansion of
federal government.
You are a member of Congress that has failed, along with
99% of the rest, to honor your oath of office. At one
point, I would have considered voting for you because of
the few (and I stress few) stands you have taken against
the dissolution of our civil liberties. That time has
passed. I must admit that a big-tax, big-spend,
socialistic democrat who respects civil liberties would be
a preferrable choice to you, sir. This is coming from
someone who understands deeply the problems with the
socialist movement and the flaws in liberal ideaology. I
am a die hard conservative. I charge that you, sir, are
not, or you would have done your best to conserve the
original intent of the Constitution.
The leadership of the Republican party is talking about
the impact that Ron Paul has made. The GOP leadership is
realizing that they cannot possibly continue to win
elections without appealing to those libertarian-leaning
true conservatives. Besides Ron Paul, our choices in this
Presidential election are between Amnesty-Campaign Finance
Reform McCain and Tax Hike subsidies for Illegals
Huckabee. Abandon the conservative principles that has
kept the Republican Party alive, Goldwater conservatism,
and naturally the party is going to fall apart. Despite
numerous attempts by the GOP establishment to marginalize
or thwart Ron Paul's campaign, he has managed to win 2nd
in some very RED states.
I realize you're a busy man, so I will close by saying
that tyranny is ancient, and freedom and liberty are very
new in this world. Will you stand with the founders who
would be absolutely disgusted that their Constitutional
amendment process is totally ignored? Or will you stand
with the despots of both parties who have decided big
government is all fine and dandy, as long as they have
some control over it? History will record the decisions
that you and others make.
Thank you for your time and what service you have done.
From a freedom loving American patriot whose skin crawls
when his elected leaders ignore their oaths, that's
probably the nicest thing I can say.
TonySutton
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,038
Did anyone else notice this was the 1776th post by the OP... 
I am freaking out!
I am freaking out!
Ronin
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 660
Just a couple more comments I have.
First, we should thank the senators that voted nay. They are patriots and looking out for our civil liberties.
Second, if you think about it the immunity is protecting the Bush administration as well as the telco's. As has been pointed out elsewhere if these lawsuits are allowed, the cases will go through a discovery phase. This will involve finding out the extent to which the executive was in violation.
Up until now the administration has not come out and admitted wrongdoing, but they have slipped up here and there admitting it. The latest such slip up was by Dana Perino (sp?) yesterday in a press conference. This is all about Bush et. al. saving face. Search http://www.therealnews.com for "wiretap" for an interesting take on things.
First, we should thank the senators that voted nay. They are patriots and looking out for our civil liberties.
Second, if you think about it the immunity is protecting the Bush administration as well as the telco's. As has been pointed out elsewhere if these lawsuits are allowed, the cases will go through a discovery phase. This will involve finding out the extent to which the executive was in violation.
Up until now the administration has not come out and admitted wrongdoing, but they have slipped up here and there admitting it. The latest such slip up was by Dana Perino (sp?) yesterday in a press conference. This is all about Bush et. al. saving face. Search http://www.therealnews.com for "wiretap" for an interesting take on things.
CurtisLow
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,954
Similar threads
