Readers' Comments

368. Pirates the Constitution right (1/2/06)

Bush defended his domestic eavesdropping program was "targeted known Al-Qaida members or associates and involved intercepts of only a few numbers in the US." This is a quibble.

1. If it was about Al Qaida, why bypassed FISA? FISA warrant is easy to get.
And there is reason to believe Al Qaida was under surveillance already. What is the work for CIA? How do they spend the huge budget on intelligence? Consider Al Qaida is illegal in every country and was in escape in caves. (what government said)

2. Who gave Bush the right to ride over the Constitution? Secret eavesdropping means unreasonable search and seizure which is against 4th Amendment. When the administration authorize themselves the right to search and arrest, then what's the difference from a totalitarian? Bush will be the similar figure like Saddam.

3. Bush is a villain who used to extort people by "terrorist". He had intimidated US into an unjust war by "WMD", "imminent danger". He now blackmails Americans by "saving their lives". Step by step, he rips off the civil right from American people and turns US into a totalitarian country.

4. Beware of another "terror attack" activated by Bush's group to justify his illegal action.

369. D.O.J. wants unlimited power (1/2/06)

Though Bush tries to put the argument in the name of "we are in the war, saving American's lives", his real purpose is to legalize unreasonable search. The real commander behind him is the Department of Justice.

1) US citizens are protected by the Constitution. If government wants to put you under surveillance, they must apply for a warrant from the court with evidence.

2) FISA(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is in low standard. Government can apply a warrant based on suspicion not evidence. But there is a wall to prevent it to be used in domestic criminal case. Because there is big difference between suspicion and evidence. And we have seen how D.O.J. hates this wall and activated waves of attack on it.

3) What happens now is government even abandon the court system and issue warrant by themselves. That's how Bush authorizes the domestic eavesdropping. If that goes through, then it's a totalitarian. The government can do what they want to do. There is no check and balance to this power. America loses it's principle of foundation.

You will understand a series events happened recently if you read the above analysis. Why a FISA judge resigned to protest. Why Bush defended his spying policy again and again. Why D.O.J. hastily start to probe the leak on spying program.

A typical sample is Padilla's case. Padilla was held without charge for three years. Now government dropped former "dirty bomb" allegation and tried to deliver him to domestic criminal court with other charges. A typical "arrest without evidence" then to transfer him to a domestic court which needs evidence to arrest. D.O.J. tried to establish a case to break the wall which is set to protect American people.

370. The corrupt D.O.J. attacks (1/2/06)

The purpose of 4th Amendment is to protect people from evil activities (set up, plant) of corruptive law enforcement agent.

If corrupt official plant fake evidence at your home. (gun, drugs) And asked for a search warranty. Judge would asked him for evidence. The corrupt official couldn't say:" Because I suspect it." That's how domestic criminal law requires. It depends on Evidence not suspicion.
The official also couldn't say, "I knew it because I had a search already." That's unreasonable search. (warrantless search) It's illegal.

FISA standard is low. Law enforcement official can request a warrant on suspicion not evidence. But there is a wall to forbid it be used in domestic criminal law. Otherwise 4th amendment will mean nothing.

Corrupt officials plant fake evidence at your home. Then apply a warrant from FISA. Say they suspect you are a terrorist. They get a warrant then found the "evidence"(gun, drug) at your home. That's how the 4th Amendment bypassed. A foreign intelligence method is used in domestic criminal law. Though D.O.J. said Patriot Act gave them such privilege, there is at least a FISA court watch their behavior.

Now they even don't need a FISA approval. They authorize themselves the right to search and arrest. To give the order to search in name of save lives of citizens. Is it for "security" or rather, abusing power? When it goes, the Constitution means nothing. It allows unlimited power of police search and arrest. (to be continued)

I have a story that is very pertinent to what is going on now. I am a civilian, no military or intelligence background, but I have a relative in a high level intelligence capacity that told me 6 months before the Iraq war began that there was NO WEAPONS of any consequence! At the time, I was working for a company in Augusta, Ga. and told some of my co workers about this. I would assume that this company is either an agency run company, or the conversations were picked up at nearby Ft. Gordon, I assume an NSA listening post. Shortly after, I was fired from this company where I had worked for over 5 years. I was approached shortly thereafter by a "company" in Miami that I now know is a black bag operation. In short, I have been harassed by series of jobs that I was approached to take. I can prove everything I say. I recorded conversations with the fake company in Miami, where I was warned about my "political statements". I even had a call from the NSA, and everybody tells me that they never call people on the phone....So far, the media seems to be scared of this story. I live in Arizona, and the reporters at the Arizona Republic were told by the management to "walk away from the story". Can anybody out there offer me some assistance? They have destroyed my career, just like they did with Valerie Plame!

... and therefore what?

At least Ms. Hughes has the common sense to bury this corpse. Now, perhaps she can set her sights toward burying the corpse of Al-Hurrah Television, another ill-conceived, Madison Avenue-ish concoction that has done far more harm than good.

Still, no amount of PR or journalistic effort and savvy can put a truly positive face on a broken and unworkable -- and thus "unsellable" foreign policy.

President Bush Job Approval (12/23/05)

Quote, "Updated Daily by Noon Eastern

Friday December 23, 2005--Fifty percent (50%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's up six points since the President's speech on Sunday night."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

A typical mind control through media. How easy they manipulate a poll number to reach their goal.

An incompetent President who didn't know how to deal a disaster caused by hurricane. A totalitrian ruler who despites the civil liberty and monitor its own citizens. He is responsible for an unnecessary war which caused a huge loss of lives. Yet it's so easy to award him a ten points raise in poll.

Why? Because Feds (D.O.J.) wants to permanent the Patriot Act. They need a strong puppet President to support it. So they strengthen him with a rigged poll number.

Not only this. Insurgence and terrorist are cooperated too. Have you ever heard any "sucide" bombing recently? Or US soldiers' casulty? Either insurgence cooperated with puppet Iraqi government, or US media have censored the bad news to give you an expression there is a successful election in Iraq. The purpose is to support the notorious Bush.

The inside group used to extort by terror attack. With 911 and anthrax attack they got Patriot Act. With insurgence they find excuse to stay in Iraq until the next mid-east war. It's not a news that the controlled media issue government favourable articles and rigged poll produced by "information operation office".

This is why there is a peaceful Iraq these days(until now when I wrote this article) and several rigged poll to promote the President. Include this sudden jump approve rate.

--------

Another poll by MSN at same time, 85% want Bush impeached.

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
* 134522 responses Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 85%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 5%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 8%

I don't know. 2%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904#survey

Fences, tunnel blocking, or even air surveilence isn't going to cut it.

Besides how do you build a fence down the middle of a river, The Rio Grande, and two HUGE lakes, Amistad Reservoir and and Falcon Lake. And if you don't believe that read my book...its listed in my "On Books" post.

There is only one thing that can partially stop illigal imigration and that's armed brute deadly force...and that would not be acceptable even to a hardshell such as myself.

The only thing that's going to stop even part of illegal immigrants is their own nations coming out of the stoneage patron/peon, the has it all/has nothing era that our own nation is slowly but surely backing into.

ID is just an attempt to cover Creationism with a
thin layer of science, so it can be taught in public
school. Perhaps parochial schools should be required
to teach Darwin. Religion should be taught in church,
not in public school.

It's amazing! With all these new "greenwashing" campaigns the FTC environmental marketing enforcement has dramatically decreased. At least that appears to be the case according to their enforcement website. In 1991 the FTC published environmental guidelines to help regulate environmental marketing claims. In the last seven years or so they have paid those guidelines little if any attention.

How about keeping some of this pathetic "God bless" bullshit out of our own country hmm? Good luck with the SMS-ing you moron.

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Bass: Thanks for the level-headed responses. It's refreshing to have an actual discussion without having to take part in a flame war.

I hope you don't mind me quoting you, but I'd like to respond to certain statements specifically.

"But, just because a pol accepts money from a corporation doesn't
mean they will automatically do the corporation's bidding."

Yes, this is true. However, the many who do actually put their contributors ahead of their constituents are counting on people believing in what you've said. We've given out too much trust for far too long, and they simply take it for granted that no one will ever look over their shoulders.

" ... I think that just going anti-incumbent is too simplistic."

This is entirely on purpose. Our elected officials are constantly thinking up ways of complicating their roles as our willing servants, so as to delay our discontent, and prolong their prosperity. Our message is just as simple as the solution needs to be, so that more people will feel that they can actually make a difference. The only other alternatives that the path we're on provides are total submission, or revolution by violence. There isn't going to be any room for indifference because absolute power corrupts absolutely - down to the last house on the cul de sac.

"Suppose the opponents are a bunch of Norm Colemans, or George
Patakis? There are good people in office currently. Why get rid of them?"

Firstly, I think you've made it clear that you trend democrat, and are fervently opposed to republicans being elected. I disagree with this because republicans do represent alot of Americans, whether it's liked or not. The same goes for democrats. But it doesn't matter which of these parties control the government more broadly than the other at any given time, because both democrats and republicans combined represent only a fraction of the people as a whole.

Yes, there are some good people in Washington who are trying to do what they were elected to do, and I've said that if you believe in these people, that you should vote for them. Contrarily, I believe that the bad far outnumber the good. Voting anti-incumbent at each election cycle for however long it takes will gain the support of the good politicians. Afterall, they already do try to represent what the people feel. Simultaneously it will send a firm message to all the bad ones, as well as all those who stand in line for their chance at being a politician, especially those with ill intentions.

" ... know who is giving money to which candidates. Unfortunately, there's no way to make people do that."

No, there is no way, other than totalitarian rule, to make people do anything. I do not believe in forcing people to take responsibility for the way they choose to live their lives. I do believe in forcing people who assume the responsibility of other people's lives to do what is sane and responsible for all involved. This is written in the Declaration of Independance as: " ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed."

VOID hopes only that our message is spread as far and wide as possible, and that those who agree with us will have a light bulb switch on, and truely believe that we can force change in this way.

The rest of your post: "Public financing of elections is the way to go. Give every candidate the same amount of money. Don't allow campaign contributions. Money is not speach, regardless of what the Supreme Court said."

I couldn't agree more, but the status quo will never allow any such legislation so long as they feel unaccountable to the pleas and demands of the people, as they are. We must first get their attention, and make them feel a little less secure about their career.

I've pretty much made my case here as thoughtfully as I could, so if we disagree at this point, then I probably can't ever change your mind. If you're satisfied with how things are going, then I'm glad for you. I'm satisfied that what I've said has at least given you pause.

It's always interesting to toss Bernie Sanders into the mix. But, before I continue about Mr. Sanders, allow me to clarify something: voting anti-incumbent doesn't have to be the absolute opposite of the traditional way of voting. You will always want to do what is right, and vote for those people whom you feel actually do represent you, and that is perfectly acceptable. Now, as a matter of fact, Bernie Sanders is more or less the 'bullseye' of VOID's goal, regardless of his status as a sitting representative.

It is clear, upon reviewing his voting history, that Sanders actually does his job, unlike most of his peers. The fact that he is an independant is icing on the cake. I personally don't even consider him to be an incumbent at all, since he does not align himself with either so called "major" parties, which are indisputably taking turns in securing their collective incumbency. So, if you live in Vermont, and appreciate Bernie Sanders, then consider yourself lucky. But also consider the rest of the country, and how Bernie's good voting trends are repeatedly stamped out by the giant herd of greedy sycophants all pawing at the tablecloth of corporate wealth.

Which brings me to the other two persons you've named: Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer. Let's start with Chuck.

Just to make this quick and painless, here is a list of his top campaign contributors in the year 2004 (courtesy of opensecrets.org):

Goldman Sachs $270,090
Citigroup Inc $241,100
Morgan Stanley $194,000
Credit Suisse First Boston $154,794
Merrill Lynch $147,000
Bear Stearns $140,900
UBS Americas $139,750
JP Morgan Chase & Co $139,550
Lehman Brothers $115,000
Metropolitan Life Insurance $111,500
Ernst & Young $108,800
Kasowitz, Benson et al $100,250
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $97,749
KPMG LLP $82,948
Paul, Weiss et al $77,000
Viacom Inc $74,700
New York Life Insurance $73,000
Bank of America $71,600
Neuberger & Berman $71,500
Sullivan & Cromwell $66,500

Now, here's a list of Barbara Boxer's top contributors:

EMILY's List $374,814
Time Warner $60,100
University of California $49,251
Viacom Inc $43,000
State of California $37,250
Milberg, Weiss et al $31,500
Girardi & Keese $29,000
Cisco Systems $26,350
Kazan, McClain et al $25,305
Vivendi Universal $23,249
Sony Corp of America $23,000
Greene, Broillet et al $21,955
Cassidy & Assoc/Interpublic Group $21,063
UNITE HERE $21,000
League of Conservation Voters $20,671
Walt Disney Co $20,250
YankeeNets $20,000
Lieff, Cabraser et al $19,650
Qualcomm Inc $19,500
Cotchett, Pitre et al $19,000

And, for comparison, here's Bernie Sanders' top campaign contributors:

Carpenters & Joiners Union $10,000
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $10,000
National Assn of Realtors $10,000
Teamsters Union $10,000
Laborers Union $7,000
United Auto Workers $6,000
American Postal Workers Union $5,000
Assn of Trial Lawyers of America $5,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $5,000
National Community Action Foundation $4,500
Paper Allied-Ind Chem/Energy Wkrs Union $4,500
Bristol Bay Area Health Corp $4,000
National Education Assn $4,000
Ironworkers Union $3,500
American Federation of Teachers $3,250
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $3,000
Communications Workers of America $3,000
National Rural Letter Carriers Assn $3,000
Sheet Metal Workers Union $3,000
Summer Events 2004 $2,571

Keep in mind that the actual dollar amounts are not as important as who is behind them. As you can see, two of these people don't represent any except the wealthiest among us. and out of these three, Bernie is the only one who opposed the House appropriations bill HR 2985 (7/29/2005), which gave all the members a hefty pay raise, and further committed our children to America's debt crisis. Outside of these three people, see for yourself how many congresspersons and senators voted to further elevate themselves above the rest of us (courtesy of vote-smart.org):

House Conference Report Vote: 7/28/2005: Adopted: Y: 305 - N: 122
Senate Conference Report Vote: 7/29/2005: Adopted: Y: 96 - N: 4

Hopefully, you all will understand why we at VOID strongly believe that now is the time for a government shake-up. The above arguement is only one example of the many reasons to take this action, and take it now.

I know that alot of you feel affiliated with either the red or the blue party, but my humble, personal opinion is that you all should see it for what it really is - a puppet show. My friends, there are indeed only two parties, and they are: Government, and Citizen. Which is truely in power now, and with which do you align?

Stay away from cable "news" channels like FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. There is a wealth of free information on the internet, independant radio, and amatuer/independant newspaper publications which offer "real" news - unlike the big corporate fatcats, who white-wash the truth about our government. Have you noticed lately how the fatcats have been focusing on easy stories like domestic crimes of the populace at large? Meanwhile, we are witnessing the fallout of the worst presidency in history, a spike in government corruption scandals, and a BLATENT cover-up of 9/11! For Jacob's sake, no major news media outlet will even let you dare to question the "official" story of what happened that day. Just try one time to call into either Sean Hannity's (ferocious Republican) or Randi Rhodes' (equally ferocious Democrat) radio shows and bring that topic up ... see if you even get on the air.

Anyway, I've rambled enough for one day. Thanks for reading.

Here's my problem with this approach: not all
incumbents are bad. To throw them all out just to
get rid of the ones you don't like is nuts. Too
simplistic. We should get rid of Bernie Sanders
because he is an incumbent? Chuck Schumer? Barbara
Boxer? Why not level the playing field with campaign
finance reform and full disclosure? Show people who
is getting money from whom.