published Sunday, August 11th, 2013

The Watchdog

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

90
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
AndrewLohr said...

Ha. (Rand Paul for President?)

August 11, 2013 at 12:20 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Sure, and he can get Jack Hunter to run his campaign.

August 11, 2013 at 2:39 a.m.
fairmon said...

Is the TFP perpetuating a phony scandal or is it not phony? How much should we give up for the possibility of more safety? What is the risk of a know all and do all government? Does congress passing a law to make something legal make it a good thing? Who do you trust?

August 11, 2013 at 8:42 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Now if the NSA would watch our White House and Capitol Building resident guests along with the appointed/anointed heads of government agencies and keep us informed of their wrong doings, prosecuting them equally, I then would have no issue with them listening and watching my every move. Until then keep the dog out of my airways, roadways, workplace and yard.

I believe it is called "Leading By Example!" It's what separates mere mortals from great men! So sad that Great Men are in such short supply.

August 11, 2013 at 9:11 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

How slippery the slope becomes.

August 11, 2013 at 9:20 a.m.
alprova said...

Does anyone really expect that their actions and/or electronic communications are totally private in the year 2013?

Before you answer that question, ask yourself another one.

Are the contents of your actions or communications of interest to a soul on this Earth? If a reality television show were to be made surrounding your daily life, would anyone tune in to watch it for more than fifteen seconds?

Okay, now that you have the answers to those questions fresh in your mind, and the chances that those answers were all likely three "No's," if...and only if so much of one of your communications were monitored in the past decade, about fifteen seconds is about all the attention your communications received by anyone who works for the NSA.

A funny thing happened the other day, that I have been laughing about since. A relative I have, who is very much anti-Obama and extremely anti-Democrat as well, was in the midst of one of his usual rants that this country was going down the tubes because Barack Obama was in charge, complete with some rather stiff language to boot, when he suddenly stopped mid-stream and uttered;

"I guess I'd better stop talking about him. The Secret Service probably has your TV and phones bugged to listen in on everything that's said in this office. They can do that, you know? They were talking about that last night on Fox News. I ain't gonna go to prison over that SOB."

People are all over the place on the issue, but like all the other "scandals" that has the Republicans in Washington clamoring for evidence of anything that can be used to discourage voters from supporting Democrats, the arrows being launched are not hitting any targets and nothing gives me any reason to believe they ever will.

The NSA is going to keep doing what they have been doing since 9/11, and the Congress will continue to authorize them to do so, just as they have since the Patriot Act was passed.

All in all, I've found that people around me are yawning, for the most part, about the alleged NSA snooping scandal, and have been since a few days after Edward Snowden became their national hero.

Now that he is safely tucked away in Russia, they are even yawning about him.

Snowden made some rather poor choices that he will have to live with for the rest of his life. He made that bed. I hope he sleeps soundly in it, but I'm betting that he has had several bouts of insomnia for the past two months, and despite any of his public proclamations, he probably has some deep regrets.

August 11, 2013 at 9:49 a.m.
limric said...

A noble effort Clay.

‘The Watchdog’ is perfect complement to two others of yours. The latter of which I think one the best ever done on the subject.

http://www.claybennett.com/pages2/nsa.html

http://www.claybennett.com/pages/10_29_01.html

August 11, 2013 at 10 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo says "All in all, I've found that people around me are yawning, for the most part, about the alleged NSA snooping scandal, and have been since a few days after Edward Snowden became their national hero." A point: Maybe you're hanging around the wrong caliber of people, Alpy. I don't know too many people that think Snowden is a national hero.

August 11, 2013 at 10:04 a.m.
jjmez said...

Your local law enforcement, the stores you shop, facebook myspace, google etc. have carried out just as much and even more intense surveillance of your movements for years without you even knowing it, and certainly without your consent or even bothering to obtain a warrant to do so.

I neither care for nor agree with NSA powers. I'm just saying your local law enforce and the rest have being carrying on the same much longer than NSA was ever established. When they said they got their info from a confidential informant, at times that may have been true, but mostly it wasn't. They've been monitoring cell phone conversations and much more for years. Remember, that's how they busted a gathering of teens and young adults years ago at RiverPark on Amnicola Hwy. They were listening in on and monitoring cell phone conversations. That's how they busted that guy over in North Chattanooga a few years back who had a marijuana grow operation in his house. They were monitoring his electricity use through a smart meter installed that had replaced the old type electrical meter.

August 11, 2013 at 10:28 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

At the Otay crossing near the San Diego border last Monday, about 200 people coming from Mexico gained entry to the United States all using the same key phrase; they claimed they had a 'credible fear' of drug cartels. According to KSAZ FoxPheonix: So many were doing this that they had to close down the processing center and move the overflow by vans to another station. No problem. Bus'em over to sign up for food stamps, unemployment bennies, etc....Thence to local DNC Headquarters, then onward to voter registration. ...give us your tired, your poor...*

August 11, 2013 at 10:28 a.m.
prairie_dog said...

It's showing again, Clay. You know. Your rebellion against your heterosexual military father who said you would never amount to anything.

He's still right.

Propagandists have known for decades that the way to sway society against, or for, some political issue is to vilify and demonize the enemy into a dehumanized stereotype while holding out "our side" as heroic, compassionate and worthy of emulation. Watch a few WW-II movies and see how the enemy is shown to be sub-human and despicable while the Allies are depicted as heroic, willing to sacrifice themselves for the common good.

We get it. You don't like America because of your daddy. Give it a rest.

White guys who work at a job and support their families are your enemy. You'd prefer everyone to be supported by the government, with no moral paradigm against sexual behavior of any sort. We get it. We don't want to live that way. We love our kids and want to keep them safe from perverts and criminals.

Why don't you blame the perverts and criminals (including terrorists) for our need to spy on everybody in order to keep us safe from them?

I've lived in places where people don't lock their doors, and leave the keys in the car. That's not anywhere around here, I guarantee you. People who support themselves, who don't abuse substances, and raise their kids to not be like YOU are not my enemy.

Your little cartoon should show the same neighborhood, with people looting the houses that don't have a watch dog. That's much closer to the truth.

August 11, 2013 at 10:53 a.m.
alprova said...

PT, you're safe as a bug, snug in your armchair while you opine on those who claim to be in fear of the drug cartels, who are very real and very murderous south of the border.

Your chances of being murdered in this country is less than half that of the average Mexican at the moment.

One out of every 8,300 Mexican citizen is violently murdered.

Your chances are about 1 in 20,000.

Since 2006, 1,200 CHILDREN have been violently murdered and documented to be at the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico.

Immigrants fleeing countries in Central and South America have murder rates that are even worse.

Your decrying what little any of those people receives in the form of public assistance, pales in comparison to the REAL reasons that they truly seek life on this side of the border.

Most are simply seeking a little sanity, peace, and stability for themselves and their families.

You take for granted what most all of them only dream about.

August 11, 2013 at 10:56 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

^^^ what prairie_dog said.

August 11, 2013 at 10:56 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

ALPO: Don't even pretend to tell me what I take for granted. The open borders that you lefties really want is happening. There are many unintended consequences to the issue. (more minority dem voters is NOT unintended) You may be a one-worlder, but many of us are not. Take your holier than thou, smarmy views and shove them, pal.

August 11, 2013 at 11:11 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

I feel a song coming on,,,,,,

"What's it all about,,,,,, ALPO?"

August 11, 2013 at 11:26 a.m.
alprova said...

prairie_dog, your post absolutely proves that some people have a self-perceived ability to psychoANALyze a person based on what they see in an artistic creation.

I've got one for you.

Clay Bennett is not YOUR enemy. The enemy are the "perverts and criminals (including terrorists)" that you despise. It is because of their actions that we have the need for the NSA to start with.

I'll never understand why it is that some people on this planet have the deep desire to attack others for simply bringing topical issues to the front burner, and who attack them like a Cobra for doing so.

How is it that you have any personal insight into the mind of Mr. Bennett's father, or any assessment that Mr. Bennett has "amounted to nothing."

You've made your opinion of Mr. Bennett crystal clear, but I'm scratching my head in trying to figure out, from your post, how you feel about the NSA.

I look at Mr. Bennett's cartoon and see a rather negative criticism being depicted about NSA spying.

Could it be that you're upset because you are behind the efforts and the actions of the NSA 100%, as I am?

I certainly don't begin to understand where you are coming from on this wonderful Sunday morning.

Maybe you should have washed the sleep from your eyes and had that first cup of coffee before you pulled your seat up to the computer desk.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find your comments to be highly misplaced, nasty to the nth degree, and shameful, to say the least.

August 11, 2013 at 11:32 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpy: You're the last one to be questioning another for psychoANALyzing. You do it almost daily. As for the NSA, they scare the beejeezus outta me. And should scare you too.

August 11, 2013 at 11:39 a.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "ALPO: Don't even pretend to tell me what I take for granted."

Then please, by all means, enlighten me to the horrible and danger filled life it is that you live, that begins to compare with that of those who make their way north.

"The open borders that you lefties really want is happening."

Sir, I challenge you to demonstrate how it is that you arrive at any opinion that any "lefties," including myself have ever proposed "open borders."

"There are many unintended consequences to the issue."

None of which will likely ever affect your own life one iota if they come here or they don't.

"You may be a one-worlder, but many of us are not."

I live my life by the example Jesus set forth. Until the day comes that someone can show me that he or his father ever commanded us to erect great walls to keep out the poor and those born in other nations who are fleeing lives of pure desperation, I'll continue to be what you coin as a "one-worlder."

"Take your holier than thou, smarmy views and shove them, pal."

Are you finished? Allow me to retort.

Everyone will one day die. Chances are, whether one believes it or not, that they will all stand before God in judgment for all they have done while on this Earth.

If you believe your assessment that you posted earlier is conducive with the teachings contained in the guidebook known as the Holy Bible, then by all means, stick with them.

If not, I urge you to reconsider amending such a thoughtless assessment.

You see, I might understand where you might be coming from, if it there were any truth to illegal immigrants coming here to live carefree lives on the dole.

I only wish it were possible to mentally transport someone like yourself to be dropped from where you are at the moment to the middle of Mexico for just 24 hours, even invisible and completely safe from any harm, just for the purposes of allowing you to witness what is going on down there.

But, that is not possible, so any compassion for those who are living that reality will likely never be forthcoming from you.

And that's okay, for the reality that does exist in your small world, is that your opinion will never change what is being done to assist those in need.

So while I am shoving my views, you can sit there and spin for all I care. Lives will continue to be improved in spite of YOUR views.

August 11, 2013 at 12:07 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpy: You never disappoint. You, sir, are incredibly FOS.

August 11, 2013 at 12:13 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Alpy: You're the last one to be questioning another for psychoANALyzing. You do it almost daily."

Uh huh....

"As for the NSA, they scare the beejeezus outta me. And should scare you too."

All I can type to that, is to offer that you must have some secretive reason(s) for being scared of the NSA.

I don't.

August 11, 2013 at 12:14 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Alpy: You never disappoint. You, sir, are incredibly FOS."

Is this the point where I am supposed to get upset because you, who considers himself so enlightened to all things worldly, has deemed me to be excrementally enriched?

August 11, 2013 at 12:22 p.m.
limric said...

Alprova,

Re. your three questions and rhetoric:

”1) Does anyone really expect that their actions and/or electronic communications are totally private in the year 2013? 2) Are the contents of your actions or communications of interest to a soul on this Earth? 3) If a reality television show were to be made surrounding your daily life, would anyone tune in to watch it for more than fifteen seconds”?

1 & 2 are irrelevant in the context of ‘our’ constitution. Number 3 is just plain immaterial.

Quote: ”Snowden made some rather poor choices that he will have to live with for the rest of his life.” I, and I’d bet a majority of Americans believe he made a very brave choice and are justified in applauding it.

In a discussion about the NSA exposures by Ed Snowden, James Risen, a NYT reporter asked Piers Morgan, ”Which document that’s come out don’t you want to talk about”? I ask you Alprova. Which of the things learned from Edward Snowden would you prefer not to know? Which part of the surveillance story that’s come to light should remain in darkness? - And why?

Can you have democracy without the consent of the governed? I think not. The issue here is just that; because what is happening lacks the consent of the governed in any justifiable sense.

Thus, the burden of said justification is on the security state, and as far as I can tell, it has no proof to contradict its challengers. Consequently, it is slowly dawning on people that the United States is becoming something other than a democracy. The true debate is what to call what it is becoming.

Secret government and spying on civilians is the product of empire; a country ruled by an EIC and in a permanent state of war.
Consequently, legitimate claims to know what the government is doing are denied in the name of 'national security,' legitimate dissent or exercising OUR RIGHTS of 'the consent of the governed' has become 'aiding the enemy.'

Freedom of expression, freedom from elitist voyeurism, and knowing what the (our) government is doing are prerequisites of liberty: Here in the US, we're losing ours.

Is this you in the future Alprova? I certainly hope not.

"The revolution will not be televised"

August 11, 2013 at 12:44 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said.....

Your decrying what little any of those people receives in the form of public assistance, pales in comparison to the REAL reasons that they truly seek life on this side of the border.

Alprova it sounds as if you are a proponent of no borders, citizenship and support just for the asking? It appears your exposure to those crossing the border is limited to a local few that have been here for a good while. How many people that live near the border or work for the border patrol have you talked to that results in your opinion of those now crossing the border? Do you have any perception of how far reaching the drug cartels are in the U.S.? Surely you don't believe the cartels accumulate the wealth they have by selling their goods in Mexico or anywhere south of the border? You support and trust the NSA but seem to discount their view of the risk at the borders? However, they do point out the borders are not the only risk.

A change in the law is appropriate but needs to be given plenty of quality thinking and discussion before another hurry and pass it to be fixed later process. You may not agree but it would seem even at the inconvenience of some the logical steps would be:

1-Gain control of the entry ways including the borders.

2-Reconcile the status of the millions already here.

3-Establish a means of controlling the number and status of those entering in a way that avoids adverse impact or risk to American citizens.

Properly managed immigration can boost the economy while poorly managed it can be a major detriment. Unmanaged, as it is now, is the worst case scenario.

August 11, 2013 at 12:46 p.m.
fairmon said...

Limric at 12:44 pm. You are on target. It seems the cry of "give me liberty or give me death" is not applicable in todays world of misplaced trust. The ever expanding governments control and taking makes one wonder if history and American independence was ever a study of those who see no risk in becoming dependent and trusting of those in positions where they become power and prestige drunk. The word transparency is being redefined it seems.

Do you ever wonder what else are we not being told and won't know unless someone leaks it to us or will it be too late when we know?

August 11, 2013 at 1:06 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo asks: "Is this the point where I am supposed to get upset because you, who considers himself so enlightened to all things worldly, has deemed me to be excrementally enriched?" Why, yes, Alpy. It is.

August 11, 2013 at 1:14 p.m.
degage said...

Limric, I don't always agree with you but lately you make more and more sense. As fairnon says, you are on target.

August 11, 2013 at 1:16 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Limmy seems to be metamorphosing. (is that a word? is it a verb?)

August 11, 2013 at 1:23 p.m.
alprova said...

Limric wrote: "1 & 2 are irrelevant in the context of ‘our’ constitution. Number 3 is just plain immaterial."

You offer that in light of the fact that the Supreme Court shot down a challenge to halt NSA activities this past February, filed BEFORE all this nonsense went public.

Quote: "I’d bet a majority of Americans believe he made a very brave choice and are justified in applauding it."

I'm not so convinced. According to a Rasmussen poll taken mid July, when all this was red hot, 12% of Americans offered that Edward Snowden was a hero. 21% considered him to be a traitor. 34% believed that Snowden falls somewhere in between, and 29% said that it was too early to tell.

"I ask you Alprova. Which of the things learned from Edward Snowden would you prefer not to know?"

Nothing he revealed was a surprise to me, nor was it information that was not publicly revealed to Americans and that could be found online in the Patriot Act.

"Which part of the surveillance story that’s come to light should remain in darkness? - And why?"

His revelations that the Government was spying on citizens of other nations makes the man a traitor, plain and simple, because it endangers each and every American, if such spying for evil intent is sidestepped in the future.

"Can you have democracy without the consent of the governed? I think not. The issue here is just that; because what is happening lacks the consent of the governed in any justifiable sense."

Can the governed do a damn thing to prevent it or to stop it?

"Thus, the burden of said justification is on the security state, and as far as I can tell, it has no proof to contradict its challengers. Consequently, it is slowly dawning on people that the United States is becoming something other than a democracy. The true debate is what to call what it is becoming."

You can't get around the fact that anyone who is not up to no good, has nothing to fear from the NSA.

"Secret government and spying on civilians is the product of empire; a country ruled by an EIC and in a permanent state of war. Consequently, legitimate claims to know what the government is doing are denied in the name of 'national security,' legitimate dissent or exercising OUR RIGHTS of 'the consent of the governed' has become 'aiding the enemy.'..."

I'm sorry, but I refuse to get upset, stomp my feet, or pop a vein over things that I am powerless to do a thing about.

"Freedom of expression, freedom from elitist voyeurism, and knowing what the (our) government is doing are prerequisites of liberty: Here in the US, we're losing ours."

I'm 54 years old and am of the opinion that domestic law enforcement, including monitoring of our citizens has been ongoing for at least as long as I have been alive.

It's going to likely get worse, or better as one may view it. I personally welcome any and all efforts to rid our streets of those with evil intent.

August 11, 2013 at 1:52 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

A rare occasion that I can agree with Bennett.

The dog looks too much like a lab though, it should be some genetically enhanced, 'roid reinforced rottweiler look-a-like.

How long has government been getting the governed to surrender their rights in the name of some crisis, often manufactured by that same government... Since the beginnings of government. Ours is no different. It is time to put our foot down and remind them who is serving whom.

August 11, 2013 at 1:57 p.m.
jesse said...

Limric put it in a nut shell BUT alas, it's wasted on Alprova!

The man REFUSES to yield to logic!

Hidebound I think would be the proper word!

Who was it said History is prologue! or somethin like that!

August 11, 2013 at 1:58 p.m.
limric said...

"I personally welcome any and all efforts to rid our streets of those with evil intent."

Who is the authority to ajudge said 'evil'? You? a Democratic or Republican majority? Lindsay Graham? Some faceless automaton?

”You can't get around the fact that anyone who is not up to no good, has nothing to fear from the NSA.”

Oh, ok. Such as the time the NSA got caught eavesdropping on phone sex calls of American troops…and passing them around the agency for laughs.

"Anyone who is not up to no good, has nothing to fear." Again; It is irrelevant in the context of ‘our’ constitution. [See 'Probable Cause.']

Dude seriously, You need to read the Constitution and digest it.

August 11, 2013 at 2:11 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Alprova it sounds as if you are a proponent of no borders, citizenship and support just for the asking?"

Not quite, but I do feel for those fleeing countries with little hope for a decent life for themselves and their families.

"It appears your exposure to those crossing the border is limited to a local few that have been here for a good while."

Not even close, and I'm not about to enter into a never-ending debate about who is more enlightened on the subject.

"How many people that live near the border or work for the border patrol have you talked to that results in your opinion of those now crossing the border?"

What alternative opinions would one expect from those who work for the Border Patrol? That would be like asking a Physician his or her opinion of Holistic healers.

I once lived in Tucson, Arizona and I still have many friends there, none of which are named Jan Brewer or Joe Arpaio.

"Do you have any perception of how far reaching the drug cartels are in the U.S.?"

Of course I do.

"Surely you don't believe the cartels accumulate the wealth they have by selling their goods in Mexico or anywhere south of the border?"

Nope, but I'll bet one could get a deep discount if they were to travel there to make their purchases.

"You support and trust the NSA but seem to discount their view of the risk at the borders? However, they do point out the borders are not the only risk."

I'm all for controlled immigration, but I am not for shutting out the poorest and most desperate who seek life here.

"A change in the law is appropriate but needs to be given plenty of quality thinking and discussion before another hurry and pass it to be fixed later process. You may not agree but it would seem even at the inconvenience of some the logical steps would be:"

"1-Gain control of the entry ways including the borders."

An all but impossible task to ever believe it will come to pass.

"2-Reconcile the status of the millions already here."

Fair enough.

"3-Establish a means of controlling the number and status of those entering in a way that avoids adverse impact or risk to American citizens."

Agreed, as long as we're discussing known criminals.

"Properly managed immigration can boost the economy while poorly managed it can be a major detriment. Unmanaged, as it is now, is the worst case scenario."

Apparently, since the net gain for illegal immigration has been at zero for at least the last three years, and in light of a renewed push to punish employers who hire illegals over Americans, I'd say that control, to an expected degree, is in evidence.

August 11, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.
alprova said...

Limric wrote: "Who is the authority to ajudge said 'evil'? You? a Democratic or Republican majority? Lindsay Graham? Some faceless automaton?"

You're taking the wrong exit of the Interstate. The evil I am referring to would most definitely include the planning of any act that would deprive another or a bunch of others of their life or liberty to live their lives in a peaceful manner.

"Oh, ok. Such as the time the NSA got caught eavesdropping on phone sex calls of American troops…and passing them around the agency for laughs."

I don't know when this was alleged to have occurred, but even if it were completely true, who was harmed by it? It's not as if these conversations made their way to YouTube or anything, is it?

"Dude seriously, You need to read the Constitution and digest it."

Dude, I'm as familiar with what is contained in the U.S. Constitution as you are. I've read it many times.

I'm really gonna piss you off now, although that it not my intention.

When are some of you going to try to grasp the simple fact that the U.S. Constitution was written at a time when those who wrote it had no clue to the evil that would come to pass in the minds of people? They certainly had no knowledge nor were gifted with powers of ESP to be able to predict that vast weaponry that can and has been used to wage wars, and to kill vast amounts of totally innocent people.

Arguing between ourselves is rather unproductive and highly inconsequential, wouldn't you agree?

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the very same arguments you have offered today and in the past. Apparently, due to the 5-4 decision handed down this past February, five of the appointed argument settlers that the Constitution calls for, believe that the methods used by the NSA are indeed Constitutionally protected.

August 11, 2013 at 2:32 p.m.
jesse said...

AL, here a dose of reality for ya! If you went to Mexico to buy drugs?? 3 days from now they would find you hangin from a bridge w/your head cut off!!some of your other takes on things like "the rule of law " are JUST as harebrained!

August 11, 2013 at 2:58 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

due to the 5-4 decision handed down this past February, five of the appointed argument settlers that the Constitution calls for, believe that the methods used by the NSA are indeed Constitutionally protected.

Yes, a 5/4 decision which happens rather often. Isn't it strange how 9 supposedly unbiased people and read and interpret the same document differently. It appears to be based on their personal and political ideology? Did they have the information that has now become public when they reached their decision? Those making liberal interpretations often accuse the more conservative of taking the document literally and applying it that way. Which provides the least risk of getting way off track and drifting to a government not intended or desired?

The constitution is principle based and amended just as the ten commandments are principles that have also been amended over time without losing or changing the original message.

BTW. Are NSA agents provided and required to wear brown shirts? Do you recall the first time the federal government announced it would reward those reporting their neighbors failing to follow government rules?

August 11, 2013 at 3:18 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpy: Do you have some sort of snorkel device allowing you to breath under all that sand?

August 11, 2013 at 3:22 p.m.
tifosi said...

PT is dribbling at the mouth again.

Never seems to have a valid point to make. Just throws rocks at others.

August 11, 2013 at 3:57 p.m.
limric said...

“The evil I am referring to would most definitely include the planning of any act that would deprive another or a bunch of others of their life or liberty to live their lives in a peaceful manner.”

A drone strike perhaps?

”I don't know when this was alleged to have occurred, but even if it were completely true, who was harmed by it? It's not as if these conversations made their way to YouTube or anything, is it?”

“Who was harmed by or their conversations made their way to YouTube or anything” completely misses the point. I know about it. And now YOU know about it. Ergo ” Their right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” was violated. No offence Alprova but aren’t you are compartmentalizing ‘harm’ in a similar fashion as you have ‘evil’.

I think it is you that needs to grasp the simple fact that the U.S. Constitution was written at a time when those who wrote it knew exactly the evil that dwells in the minds of people. That’s WHY they wrote it that way!!

You’re right about one thing though, “Arguing between ourselves is rather unproductive and highly inconsequential, wouldn't you agree?” Mmm, yea I guess so.

BUT
By rationalizing constitutional breeches as inconsequential and essentially harmless, the more consequential and harmful they will come to be. History proves out – every time.

August 11, 2013 at 4:08 p.m.
Maximus said...

Obama absolutely the most deceitful POTUS ever. The Marxist Welfare Pimp should have been impeached long ago. A worthless idiot liar. No hope and change, a politician selling mediocrity to gain power....that's all folks. NSA lies just another example of many lies this administration tells every day. Trust is gone.

August 11, 2013 at 4:46 p.m.
tifosi said...

Kind of like the lies Maximus tells about living life as a One Percenter.

August 11, 2013 at 5:10 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Tiffany says "PT is dribbling at the mouth again. Never seems to have a valid point to make. Just throws rocks at others."

Then he says "Kind of like the lies Maximus tells about living life as a One Percenter." BWAHAHAHAHAHA

August 11, 2013 at 5:26 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova opines...

When are some of you going to try to grasp the simple fact that the U.S. Constitution was written at a time when those who wrote it had no clue to the evil that would come to pass in the minds of people?

Alprova....They knew exactly the kind of evil that could come to pass. Their knowledge of people and the experience from which they sought independence was exactly why the bill of rights and the constitution with an amendment process was laboriously written to stand the test of time. They may have failed to visualize that many would not have the same appreciation for freedom they had.

It is very risky to view it as Nancy Pelosi from the granola state opined that the constitution is an evolving document. Evolution of the constitution should spawn a revolution against political prostitution.

A penalty or fine for not buying something is unconstitutional but chief Justice Roberts changed the AHCA terminology to tax and gave the administration that maintained it was not a tax an out. It is still the only cost, regardless of what it is called, for a non-purchase. This opened the door so it is probably not the last major expansion of government control. This is the kind of "evolution" that will at some point result in a revolution unless apathy prevails.

August 11, 2013 at 5:35 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Objective legal scholars can find no way to justify Justice Roberts' decision.

August 11, 2013 at 6:50 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Yes, a 5/4 decision which happens rather often. Isn't it strange how 9 supposedly unbiased people and read and interpret the same document differently. It appears to be based on their personal and political ideology?"

Whatever their ideology, they are empowered with settling legal disputes and whatever comes down the pike is the last word. That doesn't mean any or all of us have to like it.

"Did they have the information that has now become public when they reached their decision?"

I'm quite sure they did.

"Those making liberal interpretations often accuse the more conservative of taking the document literally and applying it that way. Which provides the least risk of getting way off track and drifting to a government not intended or desired?"

What difference does it really make? The safety and security of this nation should be the number one priority of our Government, and I happen to believe that it is at the core of any secretive spying efforts currently ongoing.

I do not believe for one second that my electronic communications are the least bit interesting to anyone but whom I engage with them.

"The constitution is principle based and amended just as the ten commandments are principles that have also been amended over time without losing or changing the original message."

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I know of no amendments to the Ten Commandments, other than to be translated into different languages, in which case, if they were left untouched, no one would have a clue as to what they were.

"BTW. Are NSA agents provided and required to wear brown shirts?"

I truly have no idea what they are allowed or not to wear.

"Do you recall the first time the federal government announced it would reward those reporting their neighbors failing to follow government rules?"

Nope.

August 11, 2013 at 7:09 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

You offer that in light of the fact that the Supreme Court shot down a challenge to halt NSA activities this past February, filed BEFORE all this nonsense went public.


The SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of the case in that they decided the ACLU, which brought the case, did not have standing to bring it before the court. They stated the ACLU could not show they were harmed and, in true government Catch 22 fashion, they couldn’t because the government would not reveal who they were monitoring.

Now that Snowdon has released documents that show who was monitored those people or groups will have standing to reapply this case and get a ruling.

August 11, 2013 at 7:12 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

Does anyone really expect that their actions and/or electronic communications are totally private in the year 2013?

Some I do and some I don’t. If I post on web sites like this or facebook type sites that is open to everyone I don’t but all others I do. Government agents in the name of the same should not access any of them without reasonable cause that I have broken or plan to break some law and they obtain a search warrant.

Are the contents of your actions or communications of interest to a soul on this Earth? If a reality television show were to be made surrounding your daily life, would anyone tune in to watch it for more than fifteen seconds?

As long as it doesn't involve my privacy or that of family and friends I couldn’t care less what happens to others ... Right?

If so much of one of your communications were monitored in the past decade, about fifteen seconds is about all the attention your communications received by anyone who works for the NSA.

Is this something like the 5 second rule for food dropped on the floor?

August 11, 2013 at 7:25 p.m.
alprova said...

:Omric wrote: "...“Who was harmed by or their conversations made their way to YouTube or anything” completely misses the point."

No. I think that is EXACTLY the point. Do you think in the 1950's, when everyone's telephone was on a party line, that anyone would have dared to believe that their conversations were private to any degree?

"I know about it. And now YOU know about it."

I only know of an alleged act of listening in on phone sex calls. Is there credible proof to the accusation?

"Ergo ” Their right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” was violated."

Gee...I failed to read anything about any expectations to be secure when it comes to electronic communications. I guess the founding fathers let us all down.

"No offence Alprova but aren’t you are compartmentalizing ‘harm’ in a similar fashion as you have ‘evil’."

I don't happen to think so. I believe I pretty much defined the evil intent I was referring to.

Was anyone defamed as a result of anyone else being privy to a sexy phone call? Were the participants publicly named, even to those who may have heard the contents of the phone calls?

Again, if and only if, what you claim actually took place, I tend to believe that every person who may have heard such an exchange and found it entertaining at the time, dismissed it totally within a few minutes after hearing it.

"I think it is you that needs to grasp the simple fact that the U.S. Constitution was written at a time when those who wrote it knew exactly the evil that dwells in the minds of people. That’s WHY they wrote it that way!!"

Okay then, why has it not been amended to include any inclusion and an expectation to be secure when communicating electronically with others, be it domestically or not?

Isn't that the question that really should be on the table?

"By rationalizing constitutional breeches as inconsequential and essentially harmless, the more consequential and harmful they will come to be. History proves out – every time."

If you are so adamant that something needs to be done, might I suggest that you spend your words on a letter writing campaign to petition Congress to amend the Constitution to provide the privacy you seek when talking on the phone or typing on a computer?

I fully understand why it is that some people are concerned with this issue. I don't happen to be one of those people, and for some reason, it appears to upset you that I am not.

I'm simply a person who does not sweat over that which I know I am powerless to do a thing about. The Government is going to do whatever it wants, and I accept that very certain reality.

August 11, 2013 at 7:38 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

You must have some secretive reason(s) for being scared of the NSA.

I don't.

Anyone who fears, questions, or criticizes government security or spy agencies are providing proof positive that they are guilty of some form of legal violations or treasonous anti-American activities ... Right?

August 11, 2013 at 7:40 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said ...

All in all, I've found that people around me are yawning, for the most part, about the alleged NSA snooping scandal, and have been since a few days after Edward Snowden became their national hero.

If you can sway public opinion with properly applied spin (propaganda) then any subject, no matter its importance to the health of our form of governance or our personal freedom, can be rendered meaningless ... Right?

BTW if Snowden is their hero and yet they are unconcerned about the N.S.A. snooping then isn’t that proof of media (propaganda) induced cognitive dissonance in the general populace?

August 11, 2013 at 7:55 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Alprova....They knew exactly the kind of evil that could come to pass. Their knowledge of people and the experience from which they sought independence was exactly why the bill of rights and the constitution with an amendment process was laboriously written to stand the test of time."

If that was true, then where are the words that describe all the modern day technology, including bombs that can be used to wipe out millions of innocent people at a time?

"They may have failed to visualize that many would not have the same appreciation for freedom they had."

What freedom do any of us have, if someone can be undetected and allowed the privacy to plan the murders of untold numbers of innocent people, in retaliation for some perceived wrong done to them?

"It is very risky to view it as Nancy Pelosi from the granola state opined that the constitution is an evolving document."

As this issue clearly demonstrates, it doesn't seem to have evolved enough.

"Evolution of the constitution should spawn a revolution against political prostitution."

Perhaps, but then Congress holds all the power to amend the Constitution as may be needed in response to an evolving world, yet I have failed to see one amendment proposed that would address the very issue of warrantless domestic spying on electronic communications.

"A penalty or fine for not buying something is unconstitutional but chief Justice Roberts changed the AHCA terminology to tax and gave the administration that maintained it was not a tax an out."

Had they declared it a tax, it would have most definitely qualified under the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

But, since it has been defined as a fine for a failure to be self-responsible for one's own health care costs, the fine has been justified.

"It is still the only cost, regardless of what it is called, for a non-purchase."

No it's not. Every state in the union has compulsory insurance laws that must be purchased if one makes the conscience decision to operate an motor vehicle on public roads. If one does operate a motor vehicle without insurance, fines are levied if caught.

"This opened the door so it is probably not the last major expansion of government control. This is the kind of "evolution" that will at some point result in a revolution unless apathy prevails."

Indigent care costs the taxpayers millions, if not billions per year. ObamaCare stands to force those who can to step up to the plate and to be self-reliant when it comes to their own health care costs.

Rather than to celebrate an attempt to plug a leak in the hole that costs the taxpayers so much per year, some have diverted to decrying it as an affront to freedom.

Go figure.

August 11, 2013 at 8:06 p.m.
fairmon said...

Alprova..is search and seizure without probable cause and a subpoena a violation of the constitution? We know congress is very capable of passing legislation that will not stand up to scrutiny by the supreme court. I prefer taking the risk presented by a terrorist over a run away out of control government entity that is pushing the envelope regarding the constitution. The future behavior of those in power once there is a crack in the wall should be a concern for any student of history.

Does the NSA activity give you a good warm feeling? You can piss your own pants and get better results than their peeing on your leg. Did you see the high NSA official testify before congress that they were not doing what a short time later was revealed? Who do you trust?

August 11, 2013 at 8:11 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Alprova..is search and seizure without probable cause and a subpoena a violation of the constitution?"

That depends on what is done with such a search and seizure. If one is criminally prosecuted with any evidence that was seized improperly, then there is a violation of the Constitution.

That which the NSA has been guilty of searching for and seizing, has not been used to domestically prosecute anyone of a crime, outside of anyone with involvement in international terrorism.

"We know congress is very capable of passing legislation that will not stand up to scrutiny by the supreme court."

I disagree. If Congress were to pass legislation in the form or an amendment that would specifically provide an expectation of privacy when engaged in domestic electronic communications, I see no reason on Earth why anyone would challenge it, and any reason why the Supreme Court would not honor it.

"I prefer taking the risk presented by a terrorist over a run away out of control government entity that is pushing the envelope regarding the constitution."

And I, on the other hand, am a-okay with the Government utilizing anything it can, to prevent another occurrence of what happened on September 11, 2001.

"The future behavior of those in power once there is a crack in the wall should be a concern for any student of history."

That crack, as you call it, has been there for at least the last 60 years. At one time, J. Edgar Hoover had dirt on just about every single politician, including several Presidents.

"Does the NSA activity give you a good warm feeling?"

Perhaps not, but I do see the necessity in all that they are doing to keep this nation safe from harm.

"Did you see the high NSA official testify before congress that they were not doing what a short time later was revealed? Who do you trust?"

I don't trust very many people, which is why I make careful, conscience decisions whenever I communicate electronically. What I say to someone in a private conversation, one on one, with no one else in the room, is indeed private. Outside of that scenario, I do not expect everything said to remain private.

August 11, 2013 at 9:03 p.m.
tifosi said...

Fairmon: If another terrorist attack were to happen in the USA sometime in the next few months, would you blame President Obama for not doing enough?

August 11, 2013 at 9:09 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

If another terrorist attack were to happen in the USA sometime in the next few months, would you blame President Obama for not doing enough?

He is the captain of the Ship of State and the buck should stop there .... So yes I would do so up until Feb. 2015. Of course the MSM and all of the LWNJ’s would spin so fast, that snot would fly out of their noses, in the attempt to push it off on Bush or a couple of lowly underlings in some nondescript office building in Cleveland or Omaha (Maybe Cincinnati?).

He made the claim he was the best person for the job and the one we were waiting on so he is required to carry out his duties properly and effectively without trashing the Constitution in the process.

August 11, 2013 at 10:56 p.m.
klifnotes said...

alprova said: That which the NSA has been guilty of searching for and seizing, has not been used to domestically prosecute anyone of a crime, outside of anyone with involvement in international terrorism


Unfortunately, I'll have to disagree with you on the above, al. Seems like I read an article recently that NSA is sharing their information gathered with local law enforcement who are using that information to go after low level criminals. I'll try to search and see if I can find the article again when I get time.

August 12, 2013 at 12:06 a.m.
fairmon said...

tifosi said...

Fairmon: If another terrorist attack were to happen in the USA sometime in the next few months, would you blame President Obama for not doing enough?

No and I don't Blame Clinton or Bush for 9/11. Would you blame him? We seem to forget that the immigration process allowed those terrorist involved in the 9/11 attack in the country. The process failed to generate any concern but should have. The patriot act would not have provided anything not known without it. Congress still has not and probably will not strengthen the immigration process which will continue with the borders leaking like a sieve and ignoring signs of those immigrants that should be of concern. They say they don't know who all the immigrants are, where they are or where they are from. Does that give you a safe feeling? Why so much concern about who anyone is talking to outside the U.S. if the terrorist are talking to each other in person inside the U.S.? Congress would have us think the only immigration concern are those from Mexico and other south American countries seeking to cross the border searching for a job. That would be controllable is they were so inclined.

My trust of and confidence in Obama is as close to zero as it can get. Nothing happening on his watch would surprise me. His rhetoric is like hearing the roar of the cannon but never a hole in the target. Future historians will speculate endlessly about how such a twit got elected when being a community organizer was the only noted accomplishment.

August 12, 2013 at 1:29 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said: That which the NSA has been guilty of searching for and seizing, has not been used to domestically prosecute anyone of a crime, outside of anyone with involvement in international terrorism.

Alprova...Do you know of anyone involved in international terrorism that has been prosecuted based on an NSA search and seizure of private or personal email or other data? Do you think that without probable cause and a subpoena their search and seizure would withstand the scrutiny of SCOTUS opposite the constitution if challenged? Did the court not avoid the CLU challenge with the conclusion that no one had been prosecuted therefore no harm? A rather weak reason but it is apparently what they used to avoid hearing the CLU.

August 12, 2013 at 1:47 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

That crack, as you call it, has been there for at least the last 60 years. At one time, J. Edgar Hoover had dirt on just about every single politician, including several Presidents.

Therefore what al? Does that justify illegal wire tapping, eaves dropping, surveillance or other overt actions on the part of the FBI or any other government entity. Your fear suggest you should get behind a log, or lock the doors and avoid being in public.

August 12, 2013 at 1:53 a.m.
facyspacy said...

Alp wrote, "When are some of you going to try to grasp the simple fact that the U.S. Constitution was written at a time when those who wrote it had no clue to the evil that would come to pass in the minds of people? They certainly had no knowledge nor were gifted with powers of ESP to be able to predict that vast weaponry that can and has been used to wage wars, and to kill vast amounts of totally innocent people."

Dude, you write a bunch if stupid equestrian piles, but this one takes the cake. You weren't born this stupid it's something you learned. The founding fathers need not know what type of weapons would be invented to know that people would wage war against the US sometime in the future. You need to "grasp" a few simple facts. People will always be evil and as long as there is religion and politics then there will be wars.

August 12, 2013 at 6:33 a.m.
jesse said...

According to Al's ideas since i'm old,poor, needy and looking for a better life it's ok if i rob banks!

Sounds like a plan to me!!

August 12, 2013 at 7:07 a.m.
fairmon said...

re. healthcare insurance. "It is still the only cost, regardless of what it is called, for a non-purchase."

alprova responded with....No it's not. Every state in the union has compulsory insurance laws that must be purchased if one makes the conscience decision to operate an motor vehicle on public roads. If one does operate a motor vehicle without insurance, fines are levied if caught.

That is not an apples to apples example. There is no other federal law that penalizes for failure to buy. As you point out, auto insurance is required only when owning and operating an automobile. People can still say no to an auto and avoid the required insurance which is a state issue and is different from state to state.

If you don't think health care should be a state issue then you must think auto insurance should be a federal law and everyone pay even if not needed or wanted. UNLESS, of course you are among those favored supporters granted an exemption.

August 12, 2013 at 7:26 a.m.
alprova said...

Folks, I'm not the enemy. I'm not their spokesman. You're all over me because I'm not popping a vein like you are.

I don't bother hyperventilating over that which I know I cannot change.

We can discuss this issue for the next ten years, and nothing will change. The NSA is gonna do what it wants to do.

Congress reauthorized them to do so this past December for another five years. The Supreme Court is not interested in taking away that authority, and apparently, neither is Congress.

So...what are any of you going to do to change it?

Fairmon, your statement was that ObamaCare represented a first, in fining for a non=purchase. You did not present it as a Federal issue. Nice dodge.

But, since you brought up the state thing, allow me to respond.

Health care has been handled at the state level for decades, and that appears to be the problem. Only one state in the union stepped up and did something for all of it's citizens.

And despite all the B.S. floating about, Massachusetts residents like their RomneyCare that he so loathes to claim today, it is working, and just about everyone in that state is covered by health care insurance.

So, because the states have failed, the Federal Government is gonna play it's hand of cards.

August 12, 2013 at 9:37 a.m.
limric said...

”Folks, I'm not the enemy. I'm not their spokesman.”

Hmm…You have an exoskeleton and have a Plexiglas bubble over your head. UH OH....

You came here from 'Infinity and Beyond' GOOD GOD!!

YOU’RE AN ALIEN - WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO US?!? AHHUGGHH !!

August 12, 2013 at 11:08 a.m.
jesse said...

You are a BIG target Al, plus we like to pick on ya!

August 12, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Rev Alpo just likes the attention. No matter what it takes.

August 12, 2013 at 11:27 a.m.
jjmez said...

Alprova is right when he say TSA isn't using the information it gathers to prosecute anyone. However, it is passing that information it gathers down to local authorities, albeit quietly, and local authorities are using the information to arrest citizens, primarily for minor drug charges. Which maybe related to so many arrests of marijuana growers lately.

August 12, 2013 at 1:55 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

TSA is useless.

August 12, 2013 at 2:15 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Hey ALPY: The dog on the Osprey...a little excessive, no?

August 12, 2013 at 2:33 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

The dog wasn't a big deal. In fact it rode free because the mesh bags full of basketballs were going anyway and the dog just hitched a ride with them. Obama's thrifty like that ... don't you know.

August 12, 2013 at 3:37 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

Sir, I challenge you to demonstrate how it is that you arrive at any opinion that any "lefties," including myself have ever proposed "open borders."

Well there is this

I live my life by the example Jesus set forth. Until the day comes that someone can show me that he or his father ever commanded us to erect great walls (borders?) to keep out the poor and those born in other nations who are fleeing lives of pure desperation, I'll continue to be what you coin as a "one-worlder."

"There are many unintended consequences to the issue."

None of which will likely ever affect your own life one iota if they come here or they don't.

Again with the “If it doesn’t affect me why should I care?”.

Everyone will one day die. Chances are (8 to 5 - ?), whether one believes it or not, that they will all stand before God in judgment for all they have done while on this Earth.

If you believe your assessment that you posted earlier is conducive with the teachings contained in the guidebook known as the Holy Bible, then by all means, stick with them.

For someone who has mocked religious persons in the past you sure are getting with the program lately. It wouldn’t be a foxhole conversion would it?

August 12, 2013 at 3:58 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said regarding healthcare....So, because the states have failed, the Federal Government is gonna play it's hand of cards.

Alprova could It be the states didn't fail, they didn't want it. This is how what you said really sounds:

Listen America, we in D.C. don't care what the people in a state want they are going to get what we, some in the federal government, want them to have and if they don't take it we will fine them but follow the SCOTUS advice and call it a tax but whatever it is called take their money anyway. So what if a majority don't support our plan, stuff it, you are going to play the way we decide and to hell with states rights. We know we supposed to do only those things where the federal government is empowered or specifically assigned responsibility by that relic the constitution. But, in case some of you haven't noticed we have made states so dependent on us with grants, subsides and other tools of manipulation that in most cases they are nothing but an arm or extension of the federal government to do our bidding when instructed. There is an irritating group of Americans that cling to their bible, the constitution and their guns. But, be patient we will prevail and have them totally impotent in the near future.

August 12, 2013 at 5:41 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

fairmon. Please don't use the word impotent when talking to Alpo.

August 12, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.
klifnotes said...

Update to my August 12, 2013 @ 12:06 am post:

I promised alprova I'd try to find that article on NSA and how the organization is secretly funneling information they've gathered to law enforcement to be used against ordinary citizens that have nothing to do with terrorists or terrorism.

Here's an excerpt from reuters:

Reuters reporters this week that a secret branch of the DEA called the Special Operations Division – so secret that nearly everything about it is classified, including the size of its budget and the location of its office — has been using the immense pools of data collected by the NSA, CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies to go after American citizens for ordinary drug crimes. Law enforcement agencies, meanwhile, have been coached to conceal the existence of the program and the source of the information by creating what’s called a “parallel construction,” a fake or misleading trail of evidence. So no one in the court system – not the defendant or the defense attorney, not even the prosecutor or the judge – can ever trace the case back to its true origins.

On one hand, we all knew more revelations were coming, and the idea that the government would go after drug suspects with the same dubious extrajudicial methods used to pursue terrorism suspects is a classic and not terribly surprising example of mission creep.

full story @salon.

psssst! That fence they're building along those southern borders. Is that really to keep others from crossing in or to keep the rest of us from escaping out?

August 12, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

James Clapper to review and report on NSA overreach. Swell.

August 12, 2013 at 8:28 p.m.
alprova said...

Kliffnotes, the ORIGINAL source of the story you have quoted, reveals a program that was created in 1994, to combat Latin American drug cartels.

On many totally non-mainstream sites, the source of that information appears to be Edward Snowden. You're free to believe it to be 100 percent accurate, but what is missing are any names of so much as one American who was prosecuted, convicted, and is now sitting in prison as a result of NSA snooping.

Link to non-mainstream article attributing the information to Edward Snowden;

http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkrss.php?f=How-Many-Americans-Are-Rot-in-Alternet-130812-19.html

Link to the ORIGINAL Reuters article that all the morphed blog postings were taken from;

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

This is what happens when someone attempts to change the key facts contained in something they find and then rewrite them for sensationalism.

The article you quoted, stated that it was used to "go after American citizens for ordinary drug crimes," and that simply is not true.

The target appears to be those involved in International and large scale drug crimes, not Joe Q Public scoring a bag of weed on a Saturday night.

Personally, I don't care about that program either. If someone is doing a crime, they deserve to do the time.

No one scoring a stash for themselves over the phone is the target of this secretive DEA program. They have much bigger fish to fry.

When I see the name of one American who was convicted of a crime based on information supplied by the NSA or now the DEA, based on warrantless wiretaps or any other snooping, then lets be sure to discuss it.

August 12, 2013 at 9:28 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "Alprova could It be the states didn't fail, they didn't want it. This is how what you said really sounds [like]:"

First of all, you're referring to the states that are rejecting Federal money and/or that refuse to set up the health care insurance pools.

The failure I am referring to is that the states have had control over health care insurance issues for decades, and for far too many people, that has been a failure. Those who ARE insured have no concept of such a failure. Those who have been uninsured know EXACTLY what I am referring to.

"Listen America, we in D.C. don't care what the people in a state want they are going to get what we, some in the federal government, want them to have..."

Have the states actually taken the time to poll as many residents to get a feel of what it is that the residents of a state truly want? A state that offered a plethora of insurance choices might find such an idea most welcome to it's citizens.

That is what ObamaCare offers. Choices, and some choices that have never been offered before in the history of this nation. Wait and see.

"...and if they don't take it we will fine them but follow the SCOTUS advice and call it a tax but whatever it is called take their money anyway...."

Far be it for anyone to take full responsibility for their own health care costs. Let's all be deadbeats and put the burden all on the backs of those who have insurance and continue to have the deadbeat's costs be augmented by the taxpayers.

"So what if a majority don't support our plan, stuff it, you are going to play the way we decide and to hell with states rights."

Had the states stepped up to the plate and found a way to provide options so that all of their citizens could obtain affordable health care options, the Federal Government would not have stepped in.

We're beyond that now. ObamaCare is coming, right, wrong, and it is the law of the land in all 50 states.

In time, I believe it will prove to be a wise move.

Seven weeks from tomorrow, the nation will get its first glance at the finished product.

'till then.

August 12, 2013 at 9:42 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "Hey ALPY: The dog on the Osprey...a little excessive, no?"

No. Perhaps it would be more fitting to put the dog in a cage, tie him on top of Airforce One and hope for the best.

August 12, 2013 at 9:52 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said..

Seven weeks from tomorrow, the nation will get its first glance at the finished product.

You are right except it will actually be in 2014 before the impact is known. Heaven only knows how much I hope I am wrong. If not it may be the first time in history the states exercise their right to amend the constitution.

August 12, 2013 at 9:54 p.m.
alprova said...

jjmez wrote: "Alprova is right when he say TSA isn't using the information it gathers to prosecute anyone. However, it is passing that information it gathers down to local authorities, albeit quietly, and local authorities are using the information to arrest citizens, primarily for minor drug charges. Which maybe related to so many arrests of marijuana growers lately."

Local law enforcement agencies are using drones and tips by utility company electronic usage records to seek out growers and producers of large quantities of pot.

The pictures obtained by the drones and the tips give them all they need to obtain the proper warrants to go right to the crops and/or kick down the doors.

August 12, 2013 at 10 p.m.
alprova said...

Fairmon wrote: "You are right except it will actually be in 2014 before the impact is known."

Nope. The choices promised roll out October the 1st. Wanna bet that you will not find an insurance plan that will possibly be better or cheaper than what you have now, that will be slated to go into effect on January the 1st of 2014?

"Heaven only knows how much I hope I am wrong. If not it may be the first time in history the states exercise their right to amend the constitution."

We'll have lots to discuss in seven weeks, I'm sure.

August 12, 2013 at 10:05 p.m.
klifnotes said...

Alprova, I did mention Reuters as one of two sources of information. The point is and remains the fact that surveillance is being used to go after more than just terrorists and terrorism. I never believe in the 100% accuracy of anything, no matter where the info comes from. However, there is a lot of validity to what's coming to light on government spying on the average American citizens, and if the information is being shared with local authorities, it's bound to be abused and used more than to catch some manufactured terrorist.

I also realize the bulk of this didn't start under the present administration. I also know President Obama and his administration attempted to thwart and stop a lot of spying that had already gone on under the Bush admn. but was blocked from doing so.

August 12, 2013 at 10:37 p.m.
carlB said...

Clay only drew a cartoon of what is being talked about and possibly happening. Why are some of these posters getting angry with him for their own interpretation of the drawing? Did he take sides, one way or the other?

August 12, 2013 at 10:45 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Nope. The choices promised roll out October the 1st. Wanna bet that you will not find an insurance plan that will possibly be better or cheaper than what you have now, that will be slated to go into effect on January the 1st of 2014?

Al...Have you ever heard the term "honeymoon rates" when insurance companies want to sell you a policy? The initial offering will not be the 2014 rates very long. They can and will be increased once the cost is experience rated instead of anticipated. Wasn't it nice of the president to exempt congress and their staff and supplement their healthcare by paying a minimum of a 75% subsidy to cover their cost of healthcare. A subsidy here and a subsidy there, like small business owner subsidies, those making less than something times the poverty rate, providing all the cost for others. I can't get my head around where all that subsidy money is coming from, is there really a Santa Claus or is it more borrow and print? It really does seem cheaper when you put it on a credit card and pay interest only but never pay the bill. You do know Reagan is the father of this act? He caused the number of uninsured to go up drastically after he proposed and got passed the law that required healthcare providers to treat anyone in need whether insured or not and those that could not pay? States and local governments have met the challenge of assisting providers that treat the indigent.

August 13, 2013 at 12:36 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

Had the states stepped up to the plate and found a way to provide options so that all of their citizens could obtain affordable health care options, the Federal Government would not have stepped in.

The states have no obligation to "step up to the plate" and provide healthcare for everyone unless the people in that state want their government to do so as Tennessee has done to a large extent with Tenncare.

The right of the federal government to mandate coverage was not properly addressed by the court since the states challenged the penalty the court in a narrow ruling determined the government had the authority to tax for any reason or no reason and as you know they do in more ways than for failure to obtain healthcare. Can you reference where in the constitution the federal government has the right and duty to mandate that every person must be provided healthcare insurance paid for by the government and other citizens if necessary?

August 13, 2013 at 12:55 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.