It was a hot night of hard-left talk on PBS’s Tavis Smiley show on Thursday night, when Smiley’s guest was radical Pacifica Radio anchorwoman Amy Goodman. The host of the daily Democracy Now program was decrying how American liberties have disappeared under George W. Bush, and Smiley wasn’t asking hostile questions, but softballs: "How do you explain how this Patriot Act has, in fact, crushed so many people? Crushed people, threatened people, put people at all types of unease?" Smiley never named one.
Goodman played up how awful it was, with Big Bad Bush crushing librarians and booksellers: "It is a very big problem. It was written before 9/11; it was just passed after 9/11, and that's the big problem. I travel around the country and we support independent bookstores all over. It's not only the librarians; it's the independent booksellers who also fall under the purview of the Patriot Act. It says that they and the librarians have to hand over information."
Independent booksellers and librarians are great, but the allegation here is that they were pressed for information. That's not "crushing" them or imprisoning them. They also discussed how "dissident psychologists" would prevent prisoner abuse. Smiley laid it on thick about how great Goodman was, just like PBS omnipresence Bill Moyers does:
SMILEY: "...you, more courageously than anybody else I know on radio, are raising these issues every single day -- radio and TV now, on Democracy Now -- you're raising these issues every single day, and yet I wonder whether or not you think that the average American really has a good understanding of how our civil liberties have been curbed. How they've been under threat, under attack. We hear stories here and there, but until you read this and until something happens to you or somebody you know, I wonder whether or not we really get that?
GOODMAN: I think people do at every level. I really think that President Bush has managed to unite people across the political spectrum against him. I think conservative Republicans, like progressives, Greens, Independents, Democrats, deeply care about privacy, care about corporate control, care about the war. Right now, those who are opposed to torture, those who are opposed to war, are not a fringe minority, not even a silent majority, but a silenced majority.
They weren't exactly "silenced" on PBS. They're ranting away against an alleged American dictator crushing civil liberties, with taxpayers footing the bill. They don't consider that by taking our money and trashing the war on terrorism, they're violating our right not to pay for the opposition's microphone.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"How do you explain how
May 3, 2008 - 22:38 ET by MidAmerica"How do you explain how this Patriot Act has, in fact, crushed so many people? Crushed people, threatened people, put people at all types of unease?"
My opinion is all these lefties are uneasy because, as we all have become aware, our cell phones and computers are leaving us open to the world for examination. Most of us feel we have nothing to hide but the leftists who feel this is an evil nation that needs to be held accountable for its sins don't like the idea that who they are consorting with can be traced.
Criminals
May 3, 2008 - 23:40 ET by ScrapironI'll buy the fact the patroit act is dangerous to a democrat. Since BJ swore to a lie under oath the democrat party has became a pack of liars and criminals. Nothing with a grain of truth makes it out of the DNC with Howling Howie's name on it. Every national security secret leaked and printed by the likes of the NYSlimes is leaked by a democrat. When you commit crimes and treason daily you should fear the law. Now they have two of the biggest liars known to man on the democrat presidential ticket. That is fact that is hard to deny. The rest of America has nothing to fear from the patroit act.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
I challenge Ms Goodman of
May 4, 2008 - 01:16 ET by BDI challenge Ms Goodman of Pacifica Radio to produce a single US Citizen who has been prosecuted in court based on information derived for Patriot Act SOurces.
...and here I thought Tavis
May 4, 2008 - 01:32 ET by bigtimer...and here I thought Tavis was gone, done with, that was the latest news I read about this leftist fast talker... zilch... nada....gosh you can't get rid of leftist rubbish without paying for him to stay on the air-waves to-boot.
If anyone thinks we are going to get rid of tax-payer fed PBS anytime soon..forget about it.
Heck I remember when we had a swell majority in the House and Gingrich promised this was going to be a bill and brought up and voted on to rid us of leftist sites like by PBS/NPR via tax-paying funds...uh...what happened?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt, Newt totally wussed (McCained?) out.
May 4, 2008 - 01:35 ET by R D HelmIt is as simple as that.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Oh Howdy RD... In
May 4, 2008 - 01:44 ET by bigtimerOh Howdy RD...
In response to your comment here...
Yep.
Btw...it's nice to hear your voice now.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
About the Patriot Act....
May 4, 2008 - 01:51 ET by R D HelmAs a conservative libertarian, I must admit that I am beginning to have some serious reservations about certain provisions contained in the "Patriot Act."
Unlike some of my fellow libertarians, I do realize that this country is at war, a war for its very survival. By the same token, I am beginning to see some things that I find more than a little disturbing about the intrusions into our private lives that have occurred since 9/11.
There is such a thing as government going too far. Given the fact that our current laws are at least a decade behind checking the ability of government, as well as non-government entities, to pry rather deeply into our personal lives (and I am also factoring in the rapid rise in the electronic transactions we all engage in on the internet) I think we all need to be rather cautious from here on out.
Remember, once your private and personal information has been compromised, its too late.
I trust government about as far as I could throw it, and I do not care which party is in charge.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
RD... What I am curious
May 4, 2008 - 02:05 ET by bigtimerRD...
What I am curious about is how does the Patriot Act interfere in you personal information anymore than what they already can or have if they really want information about you? They have been able to do this since I can remember...this is why I laugh out loud all the time about people saying they can pry with this or that...heck, they have your social security number, they can find whatever need be....whenever they want.
Let me know what you are talking about when it comes to anything the govt. can't find out about you if they put the bulls-eye on your head.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt, because it sort of "greases the rails" for the government.
May 4, 2008 - 02:37 ET by R D HelmYou have to understand that I have a very healthy distrust of government in general. I am a fairly private person. Over the last ten or fifteen years, our privacy as individuals has been compromised severely.
While I have no problem with the government listening in on phone conversations among potential terrorists, I cannot help but think there are a few less than ethical things going on as well.
It's late, and I am not up for going into too much detail here, but this might help you understand more fully the foundation of my concerns. Particularly the last three lines.
'night, bt.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Boortz didn't say anthing
May 4, 2008 - 02:40 ET by bigtimerBoortz didn't say anthing new RD...if they target and want you....they will get you..it has nothing to do with the Patriot Act in my opinion.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt, the link Neal left is dead now.
May 4, 2008 - 03:03 ET by R D HelmI'll look it up tomorrow, as I will be BBQing all day (big pork butt), and will have plenty of time.
Please understand that I am not trying to sound paranoid here, but, given the times we live in, one cannot be too careful.
-Especially when it appears we may be looking at a dem controlled congress in conjunction with a dem WH.
:-O
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
RD... Wow, I got through
May 4, 2008 - 03:09 ET by bigtimerRD...
Wow, I got through to his link okay and read it...as I stated above...and expressed my opinion.
Enjoy your pork.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
How dumb can liberals get?
May 4, 2008 - 03:25 ET by ToddonCapeCodWhat these numbskulls don't seem to realize is, that if Bush really were as much of a dictator as they ahve claimed for eight years, they wouldn't be airing the comments they are making.
And they hope people won't realize that and enough people would agree with them.
Todd... Nail on
May 4, 2008 - 03:33 ET by bigtimerTodd...
Nail on head.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
RD
May 4, 2008 - 07:34 ET by ricklailI wish that I was not 9 hours away from you. The BBQ sounds great. Since I moved to Eastern, NC I have not had any decent BBQ. They cook the whole hog and then pour a vinegar based sauce over it. Nasty. Vinegar is for turnip greens, mustard greens and salads. Do you do slow cook it over hickory coals? The nasty stuff they cook here is over a gas fire. I am not like Hank Hill. I would rather taste the heat.
"A pharisee is hard on others and easy on himself, but a spiritual man is easy on others and hard on himself." A.W. Tozer (Pharisee=modern day liberal)
Now that's definitely a
May 4, 2008 - 07:41 ET by motherbeltNow that's definitely a matter of "taste." Arguing BBQ is like arguing politics! My husband is a HUGE fan of "Carolina barbecue"! In fact, when our son, who was stationed at Ft. Bragg at the time, came to visit, he brought a cooler filled with BBQ from Wilbur's (don't know if you're near Goldsboro).
My husband was literally in "Hog Heaven." LOL
I am about a hour from
May 4, 2008 - 13:13 ET by ricklailI am about a hour from Goldsboro and Wilbert's. I still haven't aquired a taste for it. Now western NC BBQ is the ticket. It is nothing but the hams and butts, nof the whole hog. If your husband ever tried it he would spit out the nasty stuff from eastern NC.
"A pharisee is hard on others and easy on himself, but a spiritual man is easy on others and hard on himself." A.W. Tozer (Pharisee=modern day liberal)
BBQ... If anyone is
May 4, 2008 - 13:20 ET by Clear thinkerBBQ...
If anyone is interested, my wife has come across a great BBQ recipe. Let me know and I will PM it to you!
This is an easy but incredible tasting BBQ. I consider myself a BBQ expert (isn't everyone?)
"Abstain from McCain"
"Since I moved to Eastern,
May 4, 2008 - 13:39 ET by ckc1227"Since I moved to Eastern, NC I have not had any decent BBQ.hey cook the whole hog and then pour a vinegar based sauce over it. Nasty."
The hell you say. Your distaste of Eastern NC BBQ says more about you than the BBQ down east. If you don't like the way we do it round here, you can GIT OUT! :)
rick,
May 5, 2008 - 16:12 ET by R D HelmI use charcoal and hickory wood, mostly.
LOL-Until the enviro-weenies get it outlawed and we all are reduced to cooking on solar-powered outdoor cooking devices.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
*
May 5, 2008 - 16:23 ET by R D Helm*
RD, most of Boortz' points
May 4, 2008 - 07:04 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltare anecdotal evidence of a few individuals or in the case of the Georgia local government, nitwits gone overboard. No way is any of that indicative of a police state or any sort of indictment of the Patriot Act as strangling civil liberties.
These small overstepping of bounds, such as the Tweetie Bird key chain incident...do you REALLY fear that idiots such as that will be knocking on your door? Or is that maybe a very poor administrator? Sorry, I just don't see that incident as a cross section of American elementary school. And for Boortz to use that incident to illustrate his point just goes to show how weak his point is.
And Rick Santorum's concern about the nuances of our sex lives being subject to majority rule...I'd like to see the quote and it's context. Was he perhaps speaking of gay marriage? Nonetheless, there have ALWAYS been laws governing "indecent" behavior and the fact is that more and more of these laws are being struck down or taken off the books, so don't get your panties in a twist over the "sex police".
All these things are the normal ebb and flow of individuals seeking to get along together in an increasingly close society. Remember the sixties? Free love and drugs...was that a good thing or a permanent thing just because it happened? No, it was an idea taken too far, and it was reigned in. America will not become a police state in our lifetime.
As for the Patriot Act...again, any examples of people trodden upon by jack-booted thugs?
And this means, what?
May 4, 2008 - 07:24 ET by CobraManYour link is just one man's concern about America becoming a police state, yet that concern is unfounded as evident by his own article. Neal Boortz offers only conjecture and no real proof of any police state tactics and procedure being carried out here in America. Most of the article consists of scare tactics like the use of terms like "tried to enact" and "if it had become law" and even "expressed belief" as if these are actual examples of police state tactics here in America (they aren't, of course, because no one has ever been arrested for a law that has not been enacted).
It's easy to look at any legal system and claim "Police State" when you don't offer any real examples of excessive or unconstitutional police tactics. This man offers no proof whatsoever of his dreaded "police state" here in America, it's just his nighmare scenario. Don't let one man's nightmare become your own.
I can understand RD and Boortz
May 4, 2008 - 07:27 ET by sarcasmoSome of us get uncomfortable when Congress passes laws they never bothered to read, and could not have read even if they'd wanted-to because they weren't given time in the "decision" process. And defenders of this law aren't just defending its application under Bush. You're effectively defending its application by whatever President comes next. A good thing? Who knows?? But I'm with Judge Napolitano.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
What laws?
May 4, 2008 - 07:44 ET by CobraManWhat laws are you referring to? The only references given were to laws that were not enacted. Everything else was conjecture and innuendo and offered no real evidence at all.
There was a reference to the Patriot Act, but do you really think that the lesgislation that created those acts was enacted by people who didn't read, understand, and debated the acts before voting? Come on, those bills were debated for MONTHS before they even left congresional committee, let alone being debated for months again on the floors of each respective house of Congress before being signed by the President. I highly doubt that you can point to a single section of ether act that is an example of police state tactics. Please give me an example that is unconstitutional and is, therefor, evidence of police state tactics.
The one they had less than an hour to read
May 4, 2008 - 07:58 ET by sarcasmoIs called the "Patriot" Act. Self written warrants may not be a problem in your life, but they've been a problem in mine, OK? (Good thing for us taxpayers that the government concentrated on stamping out any attempt at honest money alternatives & directed 0 enforcement/regulatory effort whatsoever at Bear Stearns, eh?)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Less than an hour to read?
May 4, 2008 - 08:26 ET by CobraManLess than an hour to read? That's bull. The material contained in that Act was debated for years in both houses before the final version was agreed to in conference committee.
All warrants are "self-written"; you do realize that, right? Also, all warrants can and will be challenged in court so any that do not pass constitutional muster will be dismissed without cause and the case will most likely tossed out. That’s why we have courts and the ability to challenge any charges made against us.
The same is not true in a police state. In a police state, the accused is not allowed to challenge any evidence applied against them and they do not have access to the vast legal resources available here to anyone who needs them, at the government's expense if the defendant can not afford it on their own. That NEVER happens in a police state. So, tell me again, how are we in a police state?
That's what the link says.
May 4, 2008 - 08:32 ET by sarcasmo"The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it." Sorry, I trust the author, not you. He was there, and you weren't. And all warrants should see a judge, but now they don't, because of this unConstitutional law. That's a police-state-ish problem, like it or not.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
one man's fear is not evey man's truth
May 4, 2008 - 08:47 ET by CobraManIf you look at the history of the Act in question, you'll see that every piece of proposed legislation contained within it was previously examined and debated long before being included in the final version. That final version itself came from the conference committee, which means that the material contained within that act was debated in both houses and passed to the committee as to reconcile the differences between versions of both houses. Why else do you think that it passed without calls for continued debate? It passed so easily because it WAS debated time and time again, for months and months, and both houses finally decided to use the conference committee's version as the final version of Act. In other words, both houses decided to let the conference committees come up with a version that was acceptable to both houses. That's what conference committees are for, to reconcile the difference between a House version and a Senate version of any proposed legislation. I don't have to 'be there' to understand that.
"And all warrants should see a judge, but now they don't, because of this unConstitutional law."
All warrants can be challenged in court; therefore they DO see a judge. The judge can decide to dismiss the warrant, and any evidence colleted thought the application of that warrant, if the judge feels that the warrant violates established law and/or the Constitutional rights of the defendant. Therefore, the Constitutional rights of the defendant are NOT in danger of being violated.
Any congressman who claims
May 4, 2008 - 08:33 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltthat he had only an hour to read it is using procedural tactics to avoid the real issue. The vast majority of these bills (including the Patriot Act) have floated around in advance form for all parties to read for months, and every change that is made is forwarded to all. The "hour to read" has to do with formal timetables from the official presentation to voting...just lawyering crap.
The Patriot Act was anything but rushed.
Nope.
May 4, 2008 - 08:36 ET by sarcasmoLike it or not, they didn't have a final version to read until about an hour before the vote. You weren't there, he was. You can't change history, and you're probably just annoyed at the Bear Stearns jab, so you'll remain annoyed at me no matter what. But it doesn't matter. The case will go to trial in October, and a biased media that's been busily-ignoring it up to now will continue to ignore it.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
So much for the police state
May 4, 2008 - 12:15 ET by CobraMan"The case will go to trial in October"
I guess we’re not the fascist police state you fear we may have become, right? After all, no police state in the world would allow a law like this to be challenged in court, correct?
Yeah, I once had a cop
May 4, 2008 - 08:28 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltwrite me a speeding ticket that I didn't deserve...
...therefore all speeding tickets are evil repressions of a free society.
I keep seeing your allusions to some sort of persecution of you by a kabal of government thugs, but unless you can put the whole thing out there for us to make a judgement on, as a valuable reference to be considered or valueless conspiracy nattering, instead of links to one-sided lawyers' statements full of straw man arguments....it's all just distracting noise. Honestly, some people deserve to have the government hounding them.
And it sort of paints you as a conspiracy nut...just a little bit.
Well, I'd say your comment paints you
May 4, 2008 - 08:33 ET by sarcasmoAs a name-caller not interested in debate, which was already my impression. So once again, I'm not impressed.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
CM,
May 5, 2008 - 16:46 ET by R D HelmI am far from the only conservative who has problems with the PA.
I am not willing to blindly go along with this just because it was brought about by a "republican" administration. I can see all kinds of potential abuses this could bring about.
I don't trust government. Ours or anyone elses.
And since when is it okay for the government, federal, state or local, to step in and seperate children from their families without having to prove anything, as happened in Texas a few weeks ago?
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Private and Personal information?
May 4, 2008 - 08:17 ET by CobraMan"Remember, once your private and personal information has been compromised, its too late."
What private and personal information are you referring to? If you mean public library records, those are not private as you voluntarily provided that information to a public facility and that information belongs to the respective library where you provided the information or borrowed the books. That information doesn't belong to you at all and you have no legal rights concerning that information, even a right of privacy. The same is true of things like banking records, telephone call records, credit card transactions, etc. No of these records are your private, personal possessions, they are the possessions of the entity in which you made the transactions and/or provided the information and you have no legal rights concerning that information.
In other words, if you buy a book at Barns and Nobles, for example, the record of that transaction is not your private, personal property, it is the property of Barns and Noble and you have no rights in respect to that information at all, including the right to limit who may receive said information. Barns and Noble may, at any time, sell or give that information to anyone they wish, even local, state, and federal governments. They can also keep that information private and may, if they wish, required that local, state, or federal officers acquire a warrant before releasing said information to those officials, but the don‘t have to. But never assume that the information is personal or private. You gave up the right of privacy and possession of that information when you bought the book.
credit bureau
May 4, 2008 - 08:24 ET by AgnosticWorking as a credit counselor several years ago, one of the first things we had to tell nearly every person through the door is that even though the Credit Bureau’s files were about them and they had a legal right to view and dispute their file; the file itself was the property of the credit bureau. It is my opinion that most people left still not believing that it was true and if they did they thought it was an invasion of privacy. However, that did not keep them from wanting credit.
RD
May 4, 2008 - 10:37 ET by candanceI don't want to get into too much detail on here, but I also have my own ideas about things in the Patriot Act that need to be reformed.
Come on y'all, tell me for real, aren't you at least a little scared about it being in the hands of Hillary or Obama?
Not really
May 4, 2008 - 12:18 ET by CobraMan"Come on y'all, tell me for real, aren't you at least a little scared about it being in the hands of Hillary or Obama?"
Not really, for any information they may acquire as evidence against me or anyone else can be challenged in court. My lawyer could challenge the manner of collection of any information by any governmental office or authority and ask for a copy of any and all evidence collected against me prior to trial, as per my Constitutional rights. This means that the administration would ether be forced to reveal the intent behind the gathering of said information, and the process used to obtain that information, or that the information itself could not be used against me in a court of law. No matter why they did or how they did it, any information that was gathered illegally could not be used against me in any form, even as a threat.
Also, the last 30 years or so of unending news reports of 'unidentified sources' (remember deepthroat?) and the release of classified information by those 'sources' tells me that any illegal activities would soon be exposed and the perpetrators would be dealt with. It may not result in the removal of office or dismissal of duties of high-ranking personnel (think Bill and his legal troubles as President) but it would expose any nefarious activities by any administration.
Do you really believe that Hillary, or Obama for that matter, would be willing to risk exposure of nefarious activities just to get 'the dirt" on some American as a means of leverage? I don't. they’re that foolish.
CM,
May 5, 2008 - 16:54 ET by R D HelmThis is really beginning to remind me of discussions I have had in the past when people have told me things like, "...well, if you haven't done anything wrong, what are you afraid of?"
A lot.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
delete
May 4, 2008 - 08:17 ET by voodoodaddydelete
Not enough time?
May 4, 2008 - 13:35 ET by HumblepieAny politician who would use the charge "only an hour to review" is only trying to find a way around the issues. All politicians know what issues are coming up and what is in committee. They also know what changes are being recommended by said committees, as each side has a vested interested. Committee members will "consult" their parties elected officials to enlighten them on upcoming changes/revisions. Everyone knows the score before going for vote.
To try and use the analogy of e-gold as an example is going out on a limb. The government was going after only one company of e-gold which was Omni-Pay. As I understand try to understand the issue, it's the government's belief that Omni-Pay was acting, in accordance to US laws, as a "money transmitting" (transfers) agent. If that is true, and according to it's own web site it was, then they are guilty of not having the proper licenses and register as a money transmitting business.
Now if your just mad that you can't get to your e-gold shares, then I have a question for you. At the end of the year when you file your tax returns, do you include profits/losses (sort of like interest form saving account) as earned income? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you purchased 1oz of gold from e-gold, whether or not its being held in a private reserve, at lets say $350 an ounce and gold goes up to $500 an ounce, you total amount of the reserve would be $500. You would, in essence have an extra $150 worth of income to report, would you not? As their lawyer stated, an individual can always ask for their gold, just don't forget to re-smelt it and have it reappraise.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
One issue I forgot
May 4, 2008 - 13:42 ET by HumblepieLet us not forget that every time you log onto the computer and visit sites, or purchase something, a "cookie" and secondary program is installed to track your web surfing and purchases. This information is collected and sold to anyone without your consent. As for the government, yes its a sad fact that they probably do collect information using certain catch phrases or words. But, such collection techniques still must be upheld in the court of law. If not, it will be tossed out and cannot be used, or any additional information that was collected due to this.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Simply Amazing
May 4, 2008 - 14:20 ET by Jonah JohansenThe governments of the target countries US,Canada and Western Europe are not even doing 10% of what they need to be doing to protect us from the next horrific attack, yet the left fights against even that minimal level of protection.
The only question is will it take one or two more attacks worse than 9-11 and just how horrific the attacks need to be 10k killed?, 100k killed? for those countries to get serious about truely protecting us.