Comments on: Arianna Huffington:A Woman After My Own Heart http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/arianna-huffingtona-woman-after-my-own-heart/ Speaking Out For The Silent Majority (TM) Fri, 25 May 2012 23:47:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: 2006 Camaro Concept http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/arianna-huffingtona-woman-after-my-own-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-178140 2006 Camaro Concept Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:11:41 +0000 http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2205#comment-178140 <strong>2006 Camaro Concept/</strong> If you're looking for info on a 2006 Concept Camaro, we're your answer 2006 Camaro Concept/

If you’re looking for info on a 2006 Concept Camaro, we’re your answer

]]> By: Gary Gross http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/arianna-huffingtona-woman-after-my-own-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-95105 Gary Gross Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:03:18 +0000 http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2205#comment-95105 <i>Are you saying that the President has absolutely unchecked powers — just so long as he can point to 9/11 and say he’s doing (fill in the blank) to protect us?</i> Just to clarify my position: No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that the courts can be used to determine whether the action taken can be construed as fighting the war. But yes, once the courts have said that an activity is part of the President's fighting a war, then he's in charge of fighting the war. What this means is simply this: The President is responsible for fighting wars. Congress can't take away or limit the President's ability to fight that war. Similarly, the President can't appropriate funds for fighting that war. That's the nature of delineation of powers. I'm also saying that the 8 members of Congress that have been briefed on the NSA surveillance constitute a check and balance system. Are you saying that the President has absolutely unchecked powers — just so long as he can point to 9/11 and say he’s doing (fill in the blank) to protect us?

Just to clarify my position: No, I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that the courts can be used to determine whether the action taken can be construed as fighting the war. But yes, once the courts have said that an activity is part of the President’s fighting a war, then he’s in charge of fighting the war.

What this means is simply this: The President is responsible for fighting wars. Congress can’t take away or limit the President’s ability to fight that war. Similarly, the President can’t appropriate funds for fighting that war. That’s the nature of delineation of powers.

I’m also saying that the 8 members of Congress that have been briefed on the NSA surveillance constitute a check and balance system.

]]> By: Rocky http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/arianna-huffingtona-woman-after-my-own-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-95100 Rocky Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:22:36 +0000 http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2205#comment-95100 Typical. Let's parse the meaning of words so that we can say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and, while technically accurate, still be misleading. I use this example specifically becuase I think everyone reading this blog understands the difference between saying "sexual relations" and "sex"; likewise, "eavesdrop" and "wiretap". Does it make any difference? Calls are being listened to, whether by human or machine. Your privacy is being violated (setting aside the conservative argument that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution) in contrast of the Fourth Amendment. What about probable cause? Are you saying that by simply placing a telephone call to someone outside of the US that I have done something to give the government probable cause to listen in to my conversations? Or worse yet, if in my conversations with friends and relatives overseas I mention something like "I'm afraid bin Laden and al Queda are going to strike again" that I have said something so incriminating that listening to my conversations is warranted? That's called <em>Big Brother</em>. The thrust of your arguments seems to be that <em>We were hit on 9/11, and the President has the authority to do whatever it takes to prevent it happening again.</em> And as I said and with which you agreed, nobody is going to say that the President doesn't or shouldn't have the power to protect us. But with power comes responsibility. The point is that FISA was established in order to maintain a legal, fair method of conducting this kind of surveilance. The Founding Fathers (whom, I am shocked to find that <em>they</em> agree with <em>me</em> -- I thought they were all dead -- and had I known, I would have attempted to obtain their agreement on a wide variety of issues) saw fit to create a system of checks and balances in order to prevent one branch of government seizing too much power. The Bush administration wants to disregard the very structure of our Constitution and grab as much power as possible, then cloak it in secrecy. They want to be accountable to no one. This is what is so troubling. And, it makes you ask, what else are they up to? Where do they draw the line? The American people deserve an honest, open government. There is a right way to do things, and wrong way. What are we in Iraq fighting for again? Why are we spending the lives of our soldiers and billions of dollars attempting to bring to a foreign nation what we are throwing away at home: democracy? Finally, you're right: I'm not a lawyer. But I'm not stupid, either. Are you saying that the President has absolutely unchecked powers -- just so long as he can point to 9/11 and say he's doing (fill in the blank) to <em>protect</em> us? If your premise is correct, I -- and an increasing number of Americans -- wish that the Congress had the spine to stand up for what's right, and reel in this President and his increasingly corrupt administration. Otherwise, God help us when the Democrats take back the White House. Typical. Let’s parse the meaning of words so that we can say “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and, while technically accurate, still be misleading. I use this example specifically becuase I think everyone reading this blog understands the difference between saying “sexual relations” and “sex”; likewise, “eavesdrop” and “wiretap”. Does it make any difference? Calls are being listened to, whether by human or machine. Your privacy is being violated (setting aside the conservative argument that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution) in contrast of the Fourth Amendment. What about probable cause? Are you saying that by simply placing a telephone call to someone outside of the US that I have done something to give the government probable cause to listen in to my conversations? Or worse yet, if in my conversations with friends and relatives overseas I mention something like “I’m afraid bin Laden and al Queda are going to strike again” that I have said something so incriminating that listening to my conversations is warranted? That’s called Big Brother.
The thrust of your arguments seems to be that We were hit on 9/11, and the President has the authority to do whatever it takes to prevent it happening again. And as I said and with which you agreed, nobody is going to say that the President doesn’t or shouldn’t have the power to protect us. But with power comes responsibility. The point is that FISA was established in order to maintain a legal, fair method of conducting this kind of surveilance. The Founding Fathers (whom, I am shocked to find that they agree with me — I thought they were all dead — and had I known, I would have attempted to obtain their agreement on a wide variety of issues) saw fit to create a system of checks and balances in order to prevent one branch of government seizing too much power. The Bush administration wants to disregard the very structure of our Constitution and grab as much power as possible, then cloak it in secrecy. They want to be accountable to no one. This is what is so troubling. And, it makes you ask, what else are they up to? Where do they draw the line?
The American people deserve an honest, open government. There is a right way to do things, and wrong way. What are we in Iraq fighting for again? Why are we spending the lives of our soldiers and billions of dollars attempting to bring to a foreign nation what we are throwing away at home: democracy?
Finally, you’re right: I’m not a lawyer. But I’m not stupid, either. Are you saying that the President has absolutely unchecked powers — just so long as he can point to 9/11 and say he’s doing (fill in the blank) to protect us? If your premise is correct, I — and an increasing number of Americans — wish that the Congress had the spine to stand up for what’s right, and reel in this President and his increasingly corrupt administration. Otherwise, God help us when the Democrats take back the White House.

]]> By: Gary Gross http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/arianna-huffingtona-woman-after-my-own-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-94892 Gary Gross Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:14:47 +0000 http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2205#comment-94892 Notice that the Fox article used the term EAVESDROP, not WIRETAP. The distinction is worth noting. People tape the conversations on wiretapped phones. That requires a human being monitoring the wiretap. The types of intercepts that the NSA is doing are done by computers. The software is programmed to only monitor communications where either the caller or the one receiving the call are located in a foreign country. Further, the software is setup to detect keywords like al Qaida or terrorist, etc. Finally, it's obvious that you aren't a lawyer because ConLaw professors will tell you unequivocally that legislation doesn't trump the President's inherent powers granted by the Constitution. Therefore, FISA can't restrict the President's constitutional authority to detect and deter further attacks against the United States any more than the President can declare war by himself. That power rests solely with Congress. Finally, the Founding Fathers saw fit to agree with you when you said "I really doubt that there is a single US citizen who would deny the President the tools to protect us." They thought it wise to give him all the tools he needed by vesting in him the powers to protect us from ALL ENEMIES. Courts have verified that by saying that capturing enemy communications weren't a violation of the Fourth Amendment because they were REASONABLE searches and siezures. Therefore, since the Constitution gives the President the power to protect us from our enemies and there aren't any other constitutional barriers that might override the President's power to protect us, legislation such as FISA CAN'T LIMIT this eavesdropping program. Notice that the Fox article used the term EAVESDROP, not WIRETAP. The distinction is worth noting. People tape the conversations on wiretapped phones. That requires a human being monitoring the wiretap.

The types of intercepts that the NSA is doing are done by computers. The software is programmed to only monitor communications where either the caller or the one receiving the call are located in a foreign country.

Further, the software is setup to detect keywords like al Qaida or terrorist, etc.

Finally, it’s obvious that you aren’t a lawyer because ConLaw professors will tell you unequivocally that legislation doesn’t trump the President’s inherent powers granted by the Constitution. Therefore, FISA can’t restrict the President’s constitutional authority to detect and deter further attacks against the United States any more than the President can declare war by himself. That power rests solely with Congress.

Finally, the Founding Fathers saw fit to agree with you when you said “I really doubt that there is a single US citizen who would deny the President the tools to protect us.” They thought it wise to give him all the tools he needed by vesting in him the powers to protect us from ALL ENEMIES. Courts have verified that by saying that capturing enemy communications weren’t a violation of the Fourth Amendment because they were REASONABLE searches and siezures.

Therefore, since the Constitution gives the President the power to protect us from our enemies and there aren’t any other constitutional barriers that might override the President’s power to protect us, legislation such as FISA CAN’T LIMIT this eavesdropping program.

]]> By: Rocky http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/arianna-huffingtona-woman-after-my-own-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-94885 Rocky Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:01:55 +0000 http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2205#comment-94885 The NSA isn't wiretapping? Let's see: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FJNCH80.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db and further, from Foxnews.com: <blockquote>"Bush has acknowledged he authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international <em>calls</em> and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to Al Qaeda or its affiliates."</blockquote> --http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181499,00.html So, are you saying that all of the media reports (from Fox News to The Weekly Standard) are wrong? And what about President Bush's own statements (and since I don't have the exact source I won't attempt to quote) that <I>If you're calling al Queda, we want to know about it</I>? Perhaps Huffington doesn't know the full extent of the wiretapping program; it is, after all, still a secret. Nevertheless, this whole affair smacks of illegality. Let me explain. One of the many outcomes of Watergate is that the Congress passed the FISA Act of 1978. The Act has been revised numerous times, even, I believe, 5 times since 2001. The FISA court has approved over 19,000 requests to eavesdrop, and denied only 5 applications in the nearly 30 years in its existence. The FISA Act is very clear on what is allowed -- and what is not. Eavesdropping on citizens, and even people inside the US who are not citizens, is <em>not</em> allowed. As with the usual method of twisting and parsing the meaning of words, the President suggests that since half of the conversation is international, the FISA laws do not apply. Is the glass half-full, or half-empty? President Bush says it doesn't matter, just dump that water out and he'll decide for us. FISA says that is not up to the President, and for good reason. <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html" rel="nofollow">Read the Act</a>. It's really quite clear. Finally, I really doubt that there is a single US citizen who would deny the President the tools to protect us. And the President has the tools. FISA grants the legal method of conducting this type of surveilance. It even allows for a 72-hour window in which permission to spy can be retroactively obtained. Why he chooses to throw them away is beyond comprehension. Why <em>risk</em> having the evidence ruled inadmissable? Why enfringe on ordinary, every-day citizen's rights? Why not respect the Constitution, respect your fellow citizens, a simply comply with the law? The NSA isn’t wiretapping? Let’s see:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FJNCH80.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db

and further, from Foxnews.com:

“Bush has acknowledged he authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to Al Qaeda or its affiliates.”

–http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181499,00.html

So, are you saying that all of the media reports (from Fox News to The Weekly Standard) are wrong? And what about President Bush’s own statements (and since I don’t have the exact source I won’t attempt to quote) that If you’re calling al Queda, we want to know about it?
Perhaps Huffington doesn’t know the full extent of the wiretapping program; it is, after all, still a secret. Nevertheless, this whole affair smacks of illegality. Let me explain. One of the many outcomes of Watergate is that the Congress passed the FISA Act of 1978. The Act has been revised numerous times, even, I believe, 5 times since 2001. The FISA court has approved over 19,000 requests to eavesdrop, and denied only 5 applications in the nearly 30 years in its existence. The FISA Act is very clear on what is allowed — and what is not. Eavesdropping on citizens, and even people inside the US who are not citizens, is not allowed. As with the usual method of twisting and parsing the meaning of words, the President suggests that since half of the conversation is international, the FISA laws do not apply. Is the glass half-full, or half-empty? President Bush says it doesn’t matter, just dump that water out and he’ll decide for us. FISA says that is not up to the President, and for good reason. Read the Act. It’s really quite clear.
Finally, I really doubt that there is a single US citizen who would deny the President the tools to protect us. And the President has the tools. FISA grants the legal method of conducting this type of surveilance. It even allows for a 72-hour window in which permission to spy can be retroactively obtained. Why he chooses to throw them away is beyond comprehension. Why risk having the evidence ruled inadmissable? Why enfringe on ordinary, every-day citizen’s rights? Why not respect the Constitution, respect your fellow citizens, a simply comply with the law?

]]> By: John Sobieski http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/arianna-huffingtona-woman-after-my-own-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-94792 John Sobieski Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:54:43 +0000 http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2205#comment-94792 I forgot to mention that I went by HuffnPuff today and, surprisingly, the majority of posts support free speech re:the cartoons. Maybe the left is finally beginning to have some selfdoubt about their alliance with jihadists. I forgot to mention that I went by HuffnPuff today and, surprisingly, the majority of posts support free speech re:the cartoons. Maybe the left is finally beginning to have some selfdoubt about their alliance with jihadists.

]]> By: John Sobieski http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/arianna-huffingtona-woman-after-my-own-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-94788 John Sobieski Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:53:03 +0000 http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=2205#comment-94788 Here, here. Get that Democratic party a mike and some big speakers so they can tell America how wrong listening on jihadists is. It's a great 'wedge issue'?; more like a wedgie! Here, here. Get that Democratic party a mike and some big speakers so they can tell America how wrong listening on jihadists is. It’s a great ‘wedge issue’?; more like a wedgie!

]]>