Bozo_bus

Where should the line be drawn and who should draw it? A fair question. My understanding of the surveillance program is that it is applied exclusively in conversations involving known Islamic extremist leaders. The quote does not convey that significant qualifying aspect. If my understanding is correct, we should be complaining if such a program is NOT in effect. If the program is monitoring your chats with Aunt Mary, then it is tyranny. It is my understanding that such a program is in effect, Echelon. Clinton and Tony Blair entered into an agreement where England would monitor all electronic communications in the USA and we would monitor e-mail, phone, etc., of Brits. Then they would trade info. This circumvented both countries' privacy laws while providing the Big Brother oversight power mongers crave. This article in American Thinker states the contrast in programs: Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity" By William Tate The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn't show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990's. At that time, the Times called the surveillance 'a necessity.' 'If you made a phone call today or sent an e—mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency.' (Steve Kroft, CBS' 60 Minutes) Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft, 'is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.' Echelon was, or is (its existence has been under—reported in the American media), an electronic eavesdropping program conducted by the United States and a few select allies such as the United Kingdom. Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet — these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations — but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show. The Times actually defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following the Australians' revelations. 'Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists....' And the Times article quoted an N.S.A. official in assuring readers '...that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.' Of course, that was on May 27, 1999 and Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was president. Even so, the article did admit that '...many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information.' Despite the Times' reluctance to emphasize those concerns, one of the sources used in that same article, Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., had already concluded in a study cited by the Times story that the program had been abused in both ways. 'ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of 'unpopular' political affiliation or for no probable cause at all... What was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world,' Poole concluded. The Times article also referenced a European Union report on Echelon. The report was conducted after E.U. members became concerned that their citizens' rights may have been violated. One of the revelations of that study was that the N.S.A. used partner countries' intelligence agencies to routinely circumvent legal restrictions against domestic spying. 'For example, [author Nicky] Hager has described how New Zealand officials were instructed to remove the names of identifiable UKUSA citizens or companies from their reports, inserting instead words such as 'a Canadian citizen' or 'a US company'. British Comint [Communications intelligence] staff have described following similar procedures in respect of US citizens following the introduction of legislation to limit NSA's domestic intelligence activities in 1978.' Further, the E.U. report concluded that intelligence agencies did not feel particularly constrained by legal restrictions requiring search warrants. 'Comint agencies conduct broad international communications 'trawling' activities, and operate under general warrants. Such operations do not require or even suppose that the parties they intercept are criminals.' The current controversy follows a Times report that, since 9/11, U.S. intelligence agencies are eavesdropping at any time on up to 500 people in the U.S. suspected of conducting international communications with terrorists. Under Echelon, the Clinton administration was spying on just about everyone. 'The US National Security Agency (NSA) has created a global spy system, codename ECHELON, which captures and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world,' Poole summarized in his study on the program. According to an April, 2000 article in PC World magazine, experts who studied Echelon concluded that 'Project Echelon's equipment can process 1 million message inputs every 30 minutes.' In the February, 2000 60 Minutes story, former spy Mike Frost made clear that Echelon monitored practically every conversation — no matter how seemingly innocent — during the Clinton years. 'A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a——a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w——was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.' 'This is not urban legend you're talking about. This actually happened?' Kroft asked. 'Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.' Even as the Times defended Echelon as 'a necessity' in 1999, evidence already existed that electronic surveillance had previously been misused by the Clinton Administration for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis—use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation. 'The only reason it has come to light is because of concerns raised by high—level sources within federal law—enforcement and intelligence circles that the operation was compromised by politicians —— including mid— and senior—level White House aides —— either on behalf of or in support of President Clinton and major donor—friends who helped him and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, raise money.' So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that: —an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen; —intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions; —and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations. These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush Administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited to international communications, of a relative handful of suspected terrorists have created a media frenzy in the Times and elsewhere. The Times has historically been referred to as 'the Grey Lady.' That grey is beginning to look just plain grimy, and many of us can no longer consider her a lady. Hope this adds to our perspective on this issue. For more info on Echelon from the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/search/search_wrap.htm...ageField=search

Why bother? Idiots like you were ignored and marginalized back in the days when they called themselves "John Birchers". I'm perfectly content to ignore your boviating now that you fashion yourselves "Ron Paul supporters". Hofstadter's article "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" is every bit as true today as when he wrote it 40+ years ago. "Why bother?" That suggests to me that hrothgar has very important, extremely valuable knowledge that he is not motivated to share with those of us on this board! Maybe he is hinting that a monetary consideration should be offered to him for his trouble? Does anyone have an idea what hrothgar's knowledge might be worth? Anyone willing to go halvsies with me? Idiots like you were ignored and marginalized back in the days when they called themselves "John Birchers". Doh! It was my hope that my exceedingly low IQ would not be noticed. Silly me. Thank you so much for not ignoring me and instead responding to my post -- it's my first one here and so feared no one would answer, cuz, you know, not knowing anyone and all. John Birchers? It is not easy to find a group that will take idiots like me as a member. So, it seemed worth my time to look them up. This is what Wikipedia had to say: The John Birch Society is a conservative American political organization.[1] It was founded in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1958 to fight what it saw as growing threats to the Constitution of the United States, especially a suspected Communist infiltration of the United States government, and to support free enterprise. It promotes a conspiracist view of history and current reality, linking political and social events to the globalist agendas of secret cabals working behind the scenes. The Society had been greatly marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s.[2] It was named after John Birch, a United States military intelligence officer and Baptist missionary in World War II who was killed in 1945 by armed supporters of the Communist Party of China, and whom the JBS describes as "the first American victim of the Cold War." His parents joined the society as life members. Based in Appleton, Wisconsin, the society describes itself as "a membership-based organization dedicated to restoring and preserving freedom under the United States Constitution." It says that members come from all walks of life and are active in all 50 states via local chapters. Its mission is to achieve "Less Government, More Responsibility, and — With God's Help — a Better World." The JBS was formed as an educational organization and does not endorse candidates but has often come out against political figures seen as un-American. Yes, you are right, they were marginalized. Who does the marginalizing anyway? The mainstream media? Now why would the mainstream media marginalize a conservative organization? That never happens. Maybe it was those silly suspicions about communist infiltration of the US government that the torrent of documents coming out of Moscow in the post-soviet era proves was more vast than anyone suspected. Seems like every time a new batch is released more of them on Moscow's payroll turn up. Then there is the 349 agents uncovered by the Venona project. Again from Wikipedia: Many inside the NSA had argued internally that the time had come to publicly release the details of the Venona project, but it was not until 1995 that a bipartisan Commission on Government Secrecy, with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as chairman, released the Venona project materials. Moynihan wrote: "[The] secrecy system has systematically denied American historians access to the records of American history. Of late we find ourselves relying on archives of the former Soviet Union in Moscow to resolve questions of what was going on in Washington at mid-century. [...] the Venona intercepts contained overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America, complete with names, dates, places, and deeds."[22] 22 ^ Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (1998). Secrecy : The American Experience. Yale University Press, pg. 15. ISBN 0-300-08079-4. ...The Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA, housed at one time or another between fifteen and twenty Soviet spies.[13] Duncan Lee, Donald Wheeler, Jane Foster Zlatowski, and Maurice Halperin passed information to Moscow. The War Production Board, the Board of Economic Warfare, the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and the Office of War Information, included at least half a dozen Soviet sources each among their employees. In the opinion of some, almost every American military and diplomatic agency of any importance was compromised to some extent by Soviet espionage.[14] 14 ^ Peake, Hayden B.. The Venona Progeny. Naval War College Review, Summer 2000, Vol. LIII, No. 3. Retrieved on 2006-06-26. "Venona makes absolutely clear that they had active agents in the U.S. State Department, Treasury Department, Justice Department, Senate committee staffs, the military services, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the Manhattan Project, and the White House, as well as wartime agencies. No modern government was more thoroughly penetrated." Seems those Birchers and that silly Senator McCarthy WERE wrong, it was MUCH worse than they claimed. Have they no decency? And then too they wasted so much time hunting witches! Funny thing though, does anyone recall the marginalizing mainstream media reporting any of this repeatedly to unmarginalize? Maybe they figured the Naval War College Review was sufficient. That sounds right...to an idiot. I'm perfectly content to ignore your boviating now that you fashion yourselves "Ron Paul supporters". Awwww. What will a Bozo do?? There is only one of me now, by the way, they amputated my other head years ago when the Bozo was twice as smart. You're prolly right to do so though, you could never learn anything from me. In fact, you are so smart you prolly can't learn anything from anyone. Maybe you NEVER have? Boviating? Please remember, you are talking to an idiot. Let's see...does it have to do with this being my first post while you have 5770 posts? Does it mean not saying a lot? Dr. Paul does have interesting and moral positions, but you would be misled if by "support" you mean the Bozo would be "voting for," cuz my vote always goes to my party's candidate, and not being a Republican... Also, Dr. Paul's voting record indicates that he is the most (maybe only) conservative running for the Republican nomination and so it is unlikely he will even win their nomination--Republicans have abandoned conservatism, didn't you notice? Yes, they grew government faster than Clinton did with that big spender Bush, the most neoliberal President since LBJ, at the helm. Uh huh. Hofstadter's article "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" is every bit as true today as when he wrote it 40+ years ago. Being an idiot, he and his work are foreign to me, but you must be right cuz a few years ago Hillary Clinton was complaining widely about some vast right wing conspiracy. That is what you mean, right? Maybe Hofstadter doesn't read the Naval War College Review? Oh wait, The Bozo is being ignored. Never mind.

I am sure that, Senator McCarthy's The House Un-American Activities Committee (if still exists) would have the same opinion. Robert Of course Senator McCarthy had little to nothing to do with The House Committee on Un-American Activities. Passing forward that sort of misinformation is prolly a better example of political propaganda (not to mention historical revisionism) than the USA1 gaffe, though both share a common agenda. But your error-based point is that Judy3's opinion is somehow extreme and misguided and worthy of disparagement, likened to something widely discredited. The opposing opinion is that we need a nation filled with ill-mannered citizens who exercise poor judgment in the service of discharging their insanely unabiding hatred for GWB. The USA1 team did not display such passion, but it is obvious that some posters here do suffer from this obsession, which is shared with about one fifth of us. They characterize Republicans in this thread as greedy oil barons who want the poor to die. In other places they suggest Republicans want their children to breath noxious air and drink poisoned water. They want us all to drown in the rising seas some day in the ever-retreating future. 30 years ago they said it would happen in 20. Our Springs were to have been silenced 20 years ago. In this thread they minimize the folly of the USA1 team and condemn the body responsible for cleaning up the mess that team created, preferring to ignore it and "move on," presumably to the next opportunity to vent their hatred. That approach never seems to get old for them. And why should it? That end surely justifies any means. And name-calling, vilifying, finger-pointing while ignoring salient facts seem to work over and over again and gratifies that compulsive need to bash Bush ll. This bridge world microcosmic flap reflects the general malaise afflicting our country. It did not start with Bush, but one can hope it will end with him. Does Bush deserve bashing? Richly. Sadly, his bashers do so for almost all the wrong reasons, a characteristic of the emotionally disturbed neoliberals who are blinded by their passions and rendered irrational and reduced to rhetorical sound-good platitudes that have the sole purpose of stealthily imposing their brand of tyranny on the rest of us. While it behooves the Left to open their left eyes to observe the fascist regime their leaders propose with the happy assistance of the mainstream media, it likewise behooves the Right to open their right eyes and note the hypocrisy and lost way their leaders are urging with the happy assistance of the new media. One poster here is fond of calling people wingnuts, ignoring, or perhaps blinded to the obvious fact that there are 2 brands of wingnuts, Right and Left. This is a sort of projection, of course. As often as not their accusations are in fact unconscious confessions of guilt. It might be prudent to consider the possibility that when both brands of wingnuts call each other contemptible, they might BOTH be right, but again, often for the wrong reasons. Delusions die hard. It has been suggested the way out of our polarized state lies in the idea that Right and Left share common ground in their allegiance to the Constitution. But my question to such optimism is which Constitution? In his book We the People, Vol 1, learned Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman argues convincingly that our nation has lived under 3 Constitutions, that we currently live in the Third Republic. The First was that of our Founders that envisions a federalism of explicitly limited powers conferred by the several states, ratified by them on that basis. The Second Republic was brought about by force of arms by the Lincoln Republicans. This Constitution reverses the roles envisioned by the Founders and creates a federal government that usurped power from the states (i. e., the People) and grants itself unlimited power. It was the second major tyrant (Lincoln being the first) who wielded that power to create the Third Republic, FDR and his New Deal Democrats. The Demopublican tyranny has plagued us ever since. The neoliberals who coopted the Democratic Party starting in the early 1930's has had the singular intent to impose the American Socialist Party platform of 1934 on America (when that Party endorsed FDR and lost its membership en masse to the Democrats). Only one plank of that platform has NOT become American law: universal health care. So will we succumb to the incrementalism that has marked the second half of our history, become the Socialist utopia that has never worked anywhere else, or awaken to the historical forces that are driving us irrevocably to utter enslavement, and resurrect those principles and blessings that our Founders wished to bestow upon us? Will we continue to focus our attention on the Left/Right polarity that exhausts us, depletes our energies in neurotic dysfunction, or reject both in the embrace of our long lost liberty? How? It is prolly a good idea to restore the Bill of Rights -- every Amendment has suffered egregious erosion under the Demopublican menace. Adopting a foreign policy that the Founders endorsed is another step to our freedom. A significant advance in our restoration is righting the unconscionable abdication of the Congress' Constitutional duty to manage our money supply. Contrary to an earlier assertion in this thread, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, NOT a government body of any sort. It is unique only to the extent that it is the only private corporation that is exempt from filing its accounting with the Infernal Revenue Service -- or any one else. It is completely unaccountable and rewards its Republicratic sponsors by underwriting their cause du jour (delivering the promises made to get themselves elected) by printing bogus paper that makes milk more expensive. The Cost of Living Index is not inflation (the term refers exclusively to the money supply controlled exclusively by the Federal Reserve Corporation), inflation is the hidden tax we pay for our wars, our free lunches, and a scale of unspeakable corruption only possible with the astronomical budgets both parties enlarge with impunity. There are many steps required to undo the damage our nation has absorbed under the unprincipled tyrants who have governed us since Lincoln as the 2 parties have taken turns eroding their favorite freedoms. My pet peeve is the sham that passes itself as Trial by Jury, but that circumstance is too complex to bore my enduring reader any further with its explication. To get a fresh view of what is required to bring our nation back to its founding principles in this time of divisive chaos, one might google the campaign of Dr. Ron Paul. He knows a lot about health care, opposes all war without disarming our common defense, would abolish the IRS (virtually every dime it collects goes directly to the Federal Reserve Corporation in service of our illegally created "national debt"), and a whole host of other positions that reflect and result from his (and the Founders') Grand Underlying Principle. That guiding Principle regards a perception about morality. Now the Bozo is not insensitive to the squirming reaction neoliberals are prone to experience at the mere mention of the "M" word. But if it is of any consolation to those of you who have borne with me on this rant so far who may be feeling this dis-ease, remember that even religionists cannot agree on what is moral. If nothing else, the Bozo is an equal opportunity discomforter. Right or Left wingnut, even the radical center is not spared my challenge to find fault with this Principle without revealing precisely what brand of tyranny is preferred by the fault-finder. Further, this Bozo bus will not attempt to take you to an avenue that presumes to define what is moral, quite the opposite. This is the uniting foundational Principle that serves us all no matter which Constitution one chooses to defend or protect, that yields a complex political system with an entirely consistent view of freedom; it is absolute and simple: *****The initiation of force (or deceit) to achieve personal or political objectives is immoral***** Trump that, if you can. Before my body I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff, And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!' --MacBeth