Contemptible Liars & Hypocrites
The title of this post describes the Democrats fighting for the cameras and the microphones, pretending to be outraged and/or "deeply troubled" by the "revelations" reported in USA Today regarding a phone database of American citizens. Listening to them makes me want to throw up. Never mind that:
Senator Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disturbed."
Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."
Let's see, which party was it who was in the majority when this law was signed? Oh yes...
The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible.
The posturing and lying by the Democrats on this matter is shameful, but expected. And USA Today...recycling an OLD story and treating it as news is pathetic. The columnist, no doubt, will be nominated for a Pulitzer.
Andrew McCarthy has a great piece up over at National Review Online about this. Here's something you won't see asked by anyone in the MSM:
Here are a just a few questions we might ask Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean and the members of the judiciary and intelligence committees currently grousing for the cameras:
Do you maintain databases of American citizens for fundraising purposes?
Do those databases contain names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and other identifying information?
Do the databases contain information about the interests of the citizens who have been entered into them? About candidates or causes to which they have previously donated money?
Are those databases searchable? If so, what search criteria do you use to divide these American citizens into various categories?
Do you do targeted mailings for purposes of raising funds or pushing particular issues?
When you target, how do you know whom to target? That is, what kind of information do you maintain in your databases to guide you about which potential donors or voters might be fruitful to tap on which particular issues?
Do you trade information about American citizens with other politicians and organizations in the expectation that they might reciprocate and you all might mutually exploit the benefits?
Might be interesting to hear Howard the Schmuck answer these questions. He'll never have to, though.
JASmius adds: Looks like the Donks bet on the (same) losing horse again, according to ABC and the Washington Post:
No matter how many times and how badly the President and the congressional GOP screw up, the Democrats are always there to bail them out.
With a vengeance:
Someone might want to check if al Qaeda (through CAIR, say) also joined in this suit.
Almost makes one wish they'd clone J. Edgar Hoover and reinstall him at FBI. With the state of the DisLoyal Opposition these days, his plate would look like mine at every smorgasbord I visit.
UPDATE: Here's why we at HS just love Scrappleface:
The thing is, the above doesn't sound so far-fetched anymore. I don't know how Scott Ott stays ahead of them.
Senator Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disturbed."
Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."
Let's see, which party was it who was in the majority when this law was signed? Oh yes...
The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible.
The posturing and lying by the Democrats on this matter is shameful, but expected. And USA Today...recycling an OLD story and treating it as news is pathetic. The columnist, no doubt, will be nominated for a Pulitzer.
Andrew McCarthy has a great piece up over at National Review Online about this. Here's something you won't see asked by anyone in the MSM:
Here are a just a few questions we might ask Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean and the members of the judiciary and intelligence committees currently grousing for the cameras:
Do you maintain databases of American citizens for fundraising purposes?
Do those databases contain names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and other identifying information?
Do the databases contain information about the interests of the citizens who have been entered into them? About candidates or causes to which they have previously donated money?
Are those databases searchable? If so, what search criteria do you use to divide these American citizens into various categories?
Do you do targeted mailings for purposes of raising funds or pushing particular issues?
When you target, how do you know whom to target? That is, what kind of information do you maintain in your databases to guide you about which potential donors or voters might be fruitful to tap on which particular issues?
Do you trade information about American citizens with other politicians and organizations in the expectation that they might reciprocate and you all might mutually exploit the benefits?
Might be interesting to hear Howard the Schmuck answer these questions. He'll never have to, though.
JASmius adds: Looks like the Donks bet on the (same) losing horse again, according to ABC and the Washington Post:
The Post's poll found that 63% of Americans said they considered the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism; 35% said the program was unacceptable. A slightly larger majority - 66% - said they would not be bothered if the NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
According to the poll, 65% of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10, or 31%, said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.
No matter how many times and how badly the President and the congressional GOP screw up, the Democrats are always there to bail them out.
With a vengeance:
Until now, Democrats had insisted that they didn't want to end President Bush's terrorist surveillance program, saying instead that the law merely needed to be changed to make terrorist surveillance inside the U.S. illegal.
On Wednesday, however - even before USA Today's bogus report about the NSA's phone number data collection program - 71 House Democrats signed up to sponsor a move that would make it illegal for the NSA to continue to monitor terrorist phone calls.
The liberal web site Raw Story reported Thursday:
"The 71 Democrats and one independent filed an amicus brief in two federal courts reviewing challenges to the warrantless wiretapping program in Detroit and New York, joining the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights."
"Both suits demand the program be stopped."
Someone might want to check if al Qaeda (through CAIR, say) also joined in this suit.
Almost makes one wish they'd clone J. Edgar Hoover and reinstall him at FBI. With the state of the DisLoyal Opposition these days, his plate would look like mine at every smorgasbord I visit.
UPDATE: Here's why we at HS just love Scrappleface:
Concerned that the National Security Agency (NSA) may have violated the civil liberties of Americans by analyzing records of millions of phone calls to detect patterns that might indicate terrorist activity, a bipartisan coalition in Congress today will unveil legislation to scrap the NSA and replace it with a more ‘transparent’ spy agency.
“There’s nothing like sunshine to ensure accountability,” said an unnamed Congressional aide who spoke in exchange for a lobster dinner, a fine chianti and a $12 Macanudo cigar. “Just because the enemy is among us, using our telecommunications infrastructure to plot the next major attack, doesn’t mean the government can sneak around doing secret stuff simply to save a few thousand, or million, lives. We have rights.”
Under the terms of the bill, the OSI website will include a list of all covert agents [except Valerie Wilson!], with photos, home addresses, email links and IM screennames. As the OSI gathers data, it will be accessible in real-time through the website to “premium subscribers,” but even non-members will be able to view the aggregated data, and listen to brief, sample clips of legally intercepted phone calls.”
The thing is, the above doesn't sound so far-fetched anymore. I don't know how Scott Ott stays ahead of them.
posted by Jennifer at 2:57 AM
<<< Home