I don't think the phone call to CBS was a big deal....sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Looks like one of your own started the modern NSA wiretaps. I think the Democrats fail to realize there's this thing out there called the Internet and not just the bullhorn of the leftist media to give the peasants amnesia to what they've done in the past.

In 1994 Sen. Pat Leaky Leahy co-wrote a law that forced telecommunications carriers to build convenient wiretap features into their networks enabling the kind of telephone records collection now at the heart of the controversy over the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance operation.

In recent days Leahy has called the NSA's actions troubling and potentially illegal - saying they show that the Bush administration is treating Americans like terrorists.

'The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans? he exclaimed after USA Today blew the lid off the program last week. Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?

But according to the Rutland Herald, Leahy was singing a different tune 12 years ago, when he was pushing the Senate to pass his bill, the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA].

I suggest to senators if anybody does want to hold [CALEA] up, I hope that at this time next year, neither they nor their constituents, nor anybody they know, is a kidnap victim or victim of a terrorist, and have somebody ask why nothing can be done, and be told because a law that had probably 99 percent support in the House and the Senate did not pass.

Contacted by the Herald earlier this week, Leahy said there was an important difference between what his law authorized and the actions taken by the Bush administration.

That law talks of the technology of the interception and what technology can be used to intercept and it assumes very clearly that it can only be done with a warrant, the Vermont Democrat insisted.

Some legal experts say, however, said that assumption is not as clear as Leahy claims. Analyzing CALEA in 2003, the Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal explained:

CALEA requires a telecommunications provider to make 'its equipment, facilities, or services ... capable of ... enabling the government ... [without a warrant] to intercept ... all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier.'

The secret search and wiretap provisions could lead to an age of Big Brother-like surveillance, the American Civil Liberties Union complained in the same Law Journal report. Americans who oppose U.S. policies and who are believed to have ties to foreign powers could find their homes broken into and their telephones tapped.

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press WriterMon Apr 10, 4:55 PM ET

Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.

The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 � as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

The national Republican Party, which paid millions in legal bills to defend Tobin, says the contacts involved routine election business and that it was preposterous to suggest the calls involved phone jamming.

The Justice Department has secured three convictions in the case but hasn't accused any White House or national Republican officials of wrongdoing, nor made any allegations suggesting party officials outside New Hampshire were involved. The phone records of calls to the White House were exhibits in Tobin's trial but prosecutors did not make them part of their case.

Democrats plan to ask a federal judge Tuesday to order GOP and White House officials to answer questions about the phone jamming in a civil lawsuit alleging voter fraud.

Repeated hang-up calls that jammed telephone lines at a Democratic get-out-the-vote center occurred in a Senate race in which Republican John Sununu defeated Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, 51 percent to 46 percent, on Nov. 5, 2002.

Besides the conviction of Tobin, the Republicans' New England regional director, prosecutors negotiated two plea bargains: one with a New Hampshire Republican Party official and another with the owner of a telemarketing firm involved in the scheme. The owner of the subcontractor firm whose employees made the hang-up calls is under indictment.

The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became President Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004. Other calls from New Hampshire senatorial campaign offices to the White House could have been made by a number of people.

A GOP campaign consultant in 2002, Jayne Millerick, made a 17-minute call to the White House on Election Day, but said in an interview she did not recall the subject. Millerick, who later became the New Hampshire GOP chairwoman, said in an interview she did not learn of the jamming until after the election.

A Democratic analysis of phone records introduced at Tobin's criminal trial show he made 115 outgoing calls � mostly to the same number in the White House political affairs office � between Sept. 17 and Nov. 22, 2002. Two dozen of the calls were made from 9:28 a.m. the day before the election through 2:17 a.m. the night after the voting.

There also were other calls between Republican officials during the period that the scheme was hatched and canceled.

Prosecutors did not need the White House calls to convict Tobin and negotiate the two guilty pleas.

Whatever the reason for not using the White House records, prosecutors tried a very narrow case, said Paul Twomey, who represented the Democratic Party in the criminal and civil cases. The Justice Department did not say why the White House records were not used.

The Democrats said in their civil case motion that they were entitled to know the purpose of the calls to government offices at the time of the planning and implementation of the phone-jamming conspiracy ... and the timing of the phone calls made by Mr. Tobin on Election Day.

While national Republican officials have said they deplore such operations, the Republican National Committee said it paid for Tobin's defense because he is a longtime supporter and told officials he had committed no crime.

By Nov. 4, 2002, the Monday before the election, an Idaho firm was hired to make the hang-up calls. The Republican state chairman at the time, John Dowd, said in an interview he learned of the scheme that day and tried to stop it.

Dowd, who blamed an aide for devising the scheme without his knowledge, contended that the jamming began on Election Day despite his efforts. A police report confirmed the Manchester Professional Fire Fighters Association reported the hang-up calls began about 7:15 a.m. and continued for about two hours. The association was offering rides to the polls.

Virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number, which currently rings inside the political affairs office. In 2002, White House political affairs was led by now-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. The White House declined to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002.

As policy, we don't discuss ongoing legal proceedings within the courts, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

Robert Kelner, a Washington lawyer representing the Republican National Committee in the civil litigation, said there was no connection between the phone jamming operation and the calls to the White House and party officials.

On Election Day, as anybody involved in politics knows, there's a tremendous volume of calls between political operatives in the field and political operatives in Washington, Kelner said.

If all you're pointing out is calls between Republican National Committee regional political officials and the White House political office on Election Day, you're pointing out nothing that hasn't been true on every Election Day, he said.

You're making dinner and trying to sit down with your family to eat after an exhausting work week and pouring over your 401K loss report. You have just found out that the $42,000 you had accumulated as of last spring is now worth $26,040. You've just turned off the burner under the hot veggies when, BRRRINNNGGGG, the phone rings. It's the McCain campaign delivering an urgent message to you in the privacy of your own home, assuming you never listen to network news, read a paper or go on line and are unaware of their latest breaking news....telling you that Barack Obama is a terrorist who hangs with other terrorists, on the off chance that it might capture your previously uncommitted vote. If it happened to me, I would be up with the chickens Monday morning at the early voting polls telling every single peson within earshot that I had just voted a straight Dem ticket. How dare they?

1. What makes it so profitable for foreign oil companies is the tax cuts provided to them by our government. I won't even bother arguing who did that as its pretty obvious.

2. The US Department of Energy last time I checked was a page or two before the "funnies."

3. Within the same time (or probably less) that we could drill for more oil here in the US (which wouldn't even come close to producing the quantity we use, and would not stand a chance on the market due to taxes that are already in place) we could implement other sources of energy. In the course of this we would be providing renewable energy, decrease the horrific environmental impact on the environment, and create new jobs.

Being conservative and pro-life (and never having given birth to boot), "freedom of speech" is something I want to see more often--certainly more than "racist!" Talk about an over-played, lame-@ss word, ya know?

My only take on it is that, like Savage says, "I leave vengeance to God." But you certainly have every right to say whatever you want, and I'm glad you said it without apology.

What really ticked me off was when Greg Jarrett on Fox used the term for pro-lifers as "extremists." Excuse me? I have every right to be pro-life and hold anyone I elect to that same mindset. So that makes me an extremist? It escapes me if I'm also considered a religious extremist.

A $2M victory party already. If he loses what will he do? Many news casters both left and right say he should not be so bold to think he already has won. Nov 4th has not arrived yet. I'm hearing more and more democrats are voting for McCain. Polls are neck in neck (even though they don't mean squat), but they are all over the place. And we do have to factor in the 11% who are undecided. And factor in the people who are too afraid to publicly state they are not for Obama, yet when election time comes they feel more comfortable having someone in who has experience and knows what they are doing. So what's going to happen if they do lose. It IS a possibility after all. Even Michelle Obama at a rally said do not listen to the polls it is a close race.

I don't think for one second that there will be riots. I think that is a scare tactic being used by Obama supporters to put fear in Americans. "Vote for Obama or we'll riot". Pulleese. I know that if Obama wins there are a lot on the other side who will say the same. Illegal elections, votes stolen, it goes both ways.

So, I just sit back, hope the next 9 days go by fast and will wait until late 11/4 or 11/5 if it takes that long to see who won.

If Obama wins I will come back on the board and say "congratulations" but if he loses I will say "I told you so". It's at the time when people get too cockie that things don't work out the way they hope them to.

My husband is a firefighter so we have insurance through the city (BC/BS). That's a relief all by itself! However, the city has gone one step further for its employees. They provide FOR FREE a clinic where you can go for the small stuff (cuts, colds, UTIs, etc). They also provide city employees with FREE medicine so long as they carry it. It has to be generic, but it's such a huge help. What this service provides us: For me: lipid-lowering agent, happy pills, sleeping pills, and PPI. For my husband: Blood pressure medication and PPI.

They did this because it is actually cheaper for them in the long run to provide this service to their employees with health maintenance drugs, thereby reducing the added cost to the insurance from people not being able to afford this medication and ending up in the hospital which in the long run increases the cost of insurance. I just hope they can continue to do this.

...with universal healthcare than we have now. If you want to screw something up royally, give it to the gummint to run.

Good lord! Look at Canada or the UK, who have socialized medicine. You go into a Canadian clinic. It's a walk-in system. They don't make appointments. You take a number, which is 51. Number fifty is called. Then it's quitting time. You get sent home to come back another day and try your luck again. Need an MRI? Take a number. We'lll call you in 4-6 months - or you could go to the US for it. Need bypass surgery? We'll see about that.

It will become a triage system: You, sir, are 60 years old and overweight. Your cholesterol is too high. Why should we waste our precious resources on you when younger and more viable specimens are stacking up outside? No, you may not have an angioplasty - at least not this decade. NEXT!

Socialized medicine is a pretty good deal if you're young and don't need a lot of services - not so very good when you reach an age when you actually do need them.

Health insurance premiums, plus their refusal to insure people with preexisting conditions, are becoming prohibitive costwise for many (millions of Americans) to afford.

Though the example you gave may be true for some younger folks, I believe that's the exception and not the rule.

There is a huge crisis in healthcare in this country today. Good for you that you can afford it and just blame everyone else who can't. Maybe someday soon you'll be in the same boat with the 50-odd million Americans who simply can't afford it. Who will you blame then?