• commentary
  • FRIDAY OCTOBER 19 2007 9:00 AM

A Hero Rises Out Of The Democratic Shit Heap

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by FearTheReaper

Tags: Chris Dodd, Warrantless wiretapping, FISA, NSA, Telecom industry



Yesterday, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd stood up to Bush, Republicans and even his own party and showed them all what leadership qualities actually look like. The Democrats were about to cave once again, this time on the FISA wiretapping bill, when Dodd placed a hold on the legislation. It is the first time any Democrat has said, “Enough is enough.” As of now, the bill is stalled.

Amazingly, the Democratic leadership had once again given in to our very unpopular president’s wishes to undermine the Constitution. The bill would have given retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies for breaking the law. Democrats were actually going to let companies and the president get away with breaking the law.


Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program.

It was a victory for President Bush, whose aides lobbied heavily against the Democrats' bill, and an embarrassment for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had pushed for the measure's passage. It will include full immunity for those companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States.


I thought the government was made up of three branches. This article in the Washington Post is a tad misleading, because it is not the government that gave a legal directive, but the White House. This sort of shitty reporting is becoming the norm, however, and it is part of the reason Bush can get away with his nightmarish policies. They also neglected to mention that Democrat Jay Rockefeller is a telecom whore and greased this bill through his committee.

There is absolutely no need to update FISA as the Patriot Act already gutted it. In 2001 Bush authorized the NSA to secretly wiretap Americans without a court order, which happened to be illegal at the time. Telecommunication companies jumped at the chance to give away private citizens records and Bush was on his way to violating the Fourth Amendment. Comcast even charged the administration $1000 for each person’s record they illegally handed over. Currently lawsuits are making their way through the courts and it is not looking good for the telecom companies.


AT&T's customers sued them for violating their privacy in violation of long-standing federal laws and for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. Even with the most expensive armies of lawyers possible, AT&T and other telecoms are losing in a court of law. The federal judge presiding over the case ruled against them -- ruled that the law is so clear they could not possibly have believed that what they did was legal -- and most observers, having heard the Oral Argument on appeal, predicted that they will lose in the Court of Appeals, too.


The Democratic Congress has attempted to investigate the administrations circumvention of FISA, but the president has refused to give up any documents. And Vice President Cheney went as far as to actually block telecom companies from testifying before Congress, an act that is not even remotely legal. Now that a federal court has found the entire program to be illegal and unconstitutional, the telecom companies could be liable for damages. But we can’t have that now, can we? Those poor companies took part in a crime because a powerful person asked them to. How can you hold someone liable for something like that? If my mayor asks me to rape a lady, I do it and I shouldn’t be prosecuted for it. That is how America works. If an elected leader asks you to break the law, you do it and you get off totally free.

The Democrats gave in after blustering last week that the the telecom companies would not get immunity until they explained what criminal acts had been committed. Bush said no to the request, and the Democrats then reverted to their normal spineless selves and said, “Okay," because they are the world’s biggest pussies who wouldn’t know power if it was rammed up their anuses. (That is a double body hole sentence – 27 points)

But one man stood up yesterday and put a stop to this egregious crap: Chris Dodd.


The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons.

No more.

I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.

I said that I would do everything I could to stop this bill from passing, and I have.

It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution. But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document. That's why I am stopping this bill today.


As far as I am concerned, someone just stepped to the front of the Democrat presidential candidate line. Barack Obama can blow all the rhetoric he wants out of his mouth, but until he actually stands up and takes action I don’t give a shit or have any reason to believe what he says. We don’t need the “politics of hope” right now; we need the “politics of knock that shit off.” Hillary Clinton runs her campaign by polls and would never have the courage actually stand up for what she believes in, whatever the fuck that is. Chris Dodd showed leadership qualities today, more than any other Democratic candidate so far. Personal strength is the most attractive quality a politician can have and Dodd is looking like the man right now.

So, what does the hold accomplish? Holds are a strange thing. If a Senator wants to hold up a bill, they tell the party leader that they will object and withhold their support from a bill being brought to the floor under unanimous consent. It forces the Senator supporting the bill to follow the actual rules of the Senate, which are much more difficult. They have to make a “motion to proceed,” which requires a vote on whether or not to start debate. The objecting Senator can then filibuster the motion to proceed. At that point 60 votes would be required to stop the filibuster. In a Senate that barely has a majority, Senators generally don’t want to risk angering anyone who they may need on their side some day. It’s an “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” situation.

If Democrats vote to end the filibuster, they are pissing off one of their own – in this case a man who is putting his career on the line for what he believes is right. And now Dodd is that guy in Tiananmen Square standing in front of the tanks. The left’s heroes, like Boxer, Feingold and Obama, did not have the balls to take this action. It is a big deal and a rare show of responsibility, courage and conviction by a politician.

And Dodd is about to get hit with a shit storm from the right. I don’t think we’ve ever seen the kind of attack we are about to witness on just one man. He will be threatened with retribution in the Senate by the right wing. His fellow lawmakers will threaten to filibuster and knock down every bill he introduces from this day forward. Fox News, the president and AM radio are going to go ape shit on the man. But Dodd did it anyway and it is important to recognize.

Dodd is a rare politician and everyone should now take a look at the man as a presidential candidate. At the very least, you can shoot him a message to thank him for doing what is right.

Update:

Majority Leader and amazing coward Harry Reid is threatening to do what he can to push the bill forward. Dodd responds:

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

OCT 21, 2007 12:39 AM

FYI

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

OCT 21, 2007 12:47 AM

conservative said:
Well don't get to high on your horse there. The democrats have been gutting the bill of rights and the constitution for years. It is convenient how liberals all forget about violating our right to keep and bear arms. Not to mention what they tried to do to search and seizure laws. In case you don't know it, had Brady Bill II passed anyone with more than 1000 rounds of ammunition or more than 10 guns ( any guns it did not specify, they could have been antique as well for my understanding) would have had to register as an arsenal with ATF. What that means is that you would have given up your right to search and seizure, because the police, and I mean all law enforcement there, would have been able to just walk up to your house and search it, no warrant involved. Good thing that the Republicans blocked that one.

Also just so you know gun control supports crime. Freedom to carry a weapon deters crime. No you say, let me ask you, If you wanted to rob someone, would you rob someone that might be carrying a gun or would you rob the guy that you knew didn't have a gun? ..... Exactly.



Nice rant, one issue Larry

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

OCT 21, 2007 12:51 AM

FearTheReaper said:
Nice rant, one issue Larry

Retard...or something...

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

OCT 21, 2007 05:02 PM

conservative said:
Well don't get to high on your horse there. The democrats have been gutting the bill of rights and the constitution for years. It is convenient how liberals all forget about violating our right to keep and bear arms. Not to mention what they tried to do to search and seizure laws. In case you don't know it, had Brady Bill II passed anyone with more than 1000 rounds of ammunition or more than 10 guns ( any guns it did not specify, they could have been antique as well for my understanding) would have had to register as an arsenal with ATF. What that means is that you would have given up your right to search and seizure, because the police, and I mean all law enforcement there, would have been able to just walk up to your house and search it, no warrant involved. Good thing that the Republicans blocked that one.



I can see that collectors might want to own many guns. (Though I can't see why they all need to be usable. Ten usable guns should be enough for anyone.)
But why more than 1000 rounds? IIUC, it's easy to buy ammunition. Under what circumstances are you going to need that much ammunition? Unless you were thinking of starting some sort of war, or something.


Also just so you know gun control supports crime. Freedom to carry a weapon deters crime. No you say, let me ask you, If you wanted to rob someone, would you rob someone that might be carrying a gun or would you rob the guy that you knew didn't have a gun? ..... Exactly.



I'd rob the guy with the gun. Then I'd have a gun.

If I'm desperate enough to rob someone, I'm not going to care if he's got a gun or not. If I think he might have, I'm just going to kill him outright first, then rob him; whether he is carrying, or not. I might have to think a little more about how to do it, but so what? The logic is clear enough.

So, gun freedom supports murder. Freedom to carry a weapon exacerbates crime.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

OCT 21, 2007 05:16 PM

SockPuppet said:

conservative said:
Well don't get to high on your horse there. The democrats have been gutting the bill of rights and the constitution for years. It is convenient how liberals all forget about violating our right to keep and bear arms. Not to mention what they tried to do to search and seizure laws. In case you don't know it, had Brady Bill II passed anyone with more than 1000 rounds of ammunition or more than 10 guns ( any guns it did not specify, they could have been antique as well for my understanding) would have had to register as an arsenal with ATF. What that means is that you would have given up your right to search and seizure, because the police, and I mean all law enforcement there, would have been able to just walk up to your house and search it, no warrant involved. Good thing that the Republicans blocked that one.



I can see that collectors might want to own many guns. (Though I can't see why they all need to be usable. Ten usable guns should be enough for anyone.)
But why more than 1000 rounds? IIUC, it's easy to buy ammunition. Under what circumstances are you going to need that much ammunition? Unless you were thinking of starting some sort of war, or something.


Also just so you know gun control supports crime. Freedom to carry a weapon deters crime. No you say, let me ask you, If you wanted to rob someone, would you rob someone that might be carrying a gun or would you rob the guy that you knew didn't have a gun? ..... Exactly.



I'd rob the guy with the gun. Then I'd have a gun.

If I'm desperate enough to rob someone, I'm not going to care if he's got a gun or not. If I think he might have, I'm just going to kill him outright first, then rob him; whether he is carrying, or not. I might have to think a little more about how to do it, but so what? The logic is clear enough.

So, gun freedom supports murder. Freedom to carry a weapon exacerbates crime.



1,000 rounds of ammo is not alot, thats a few hours at the range. I have probably close to if not over 1,000 rounds but thats because I bought . 308 rifle ammo when it was cheap. With the war in Iraq it's hard to get that ammo now and I knew it was going to be a pain so I bought what I could and sealed it up in ammo cans to keep it fresh. I don't plan on starting a war or anything like that but if you have multiple types of guns of different caliburs 1k ammo is nothing.

As for robbing the person with the gun it's not that simple, you have to know he has the gun in the first place. Many store owners have guns it's well known they do but they still somehow not only get robbed but also use them in self defense. I will admit it's not the be all end all of deterance if someone wants to rob you they will rob you. However it does help out a great deal if you actually need to defend yourself.

Your logic altho sound on paper does not truly carry out into most real world situations

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

OCT 21, 2007 05:39 PM

bald_eagle said:
I have no problem with the right to bear arms. I have a fair amount of firepower in my own home, and I'll probably be getting a carry permit again soon (I let the old one expire after moving out of a nasty neighborhood.)

I do have a problem with guns being available without background checks - such as at shows, etc. And I question a private individual's need for automatic weapons.



Background checks are a must, tho I think automatic weapons are pretty much a non issue. the only time you hear about them being used in crimes they are illegally modified weapons or black market weapons. For the most part the same people who can afford 15,000 for a legit one are not the types likely to use them in a crime.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

OCT 21, 2007 05:50 PM

Oh fuck.

This motherfucking thread is not about the motherfucking 2nd motherfucking amendment.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

OCT 21, 2007 08:28 PM

bald_eagle said:
What I find interesting, now that Nick reminds us of the original topic, is that Sen. Dodd also breaks with the administration on gun control. He voted for background checks at gun shows, for example.

A summary of his record with respect to gun control can be found here.

I'm liking the guy more all the time. And he's got a great head of hair.



I don't know if I would vote for him for President, I don't know that much about his other policies and proposals, but I gotta say, as a resident of Connecticut, it is very refreshing to have this guy as an alternative to fucking Lieberman.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

OCT 24, 2007 02:50 AM

Took two days for the courageous Clinton and Obama to do their polling, so they could figure out which side they landed on. Turns out they will support a Dodd filibuster.

This is exactly why I would never vote for either one of these losers. Personal beliefs = 0. Polling = 10.

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

OCT 24, 2007 06:15 PM

SockPuppet said:

conservative said:
Well don't get to high on your horse there. The democrats have been gutting the bill of rights and the constitution for years. It is convenient how liberals all forget about violating our right to keep and bear arms. Not to mention what they tried to do to search and seizure laws. In case you don't know it, had Brady Bill II passed anyone with more than 1000 rounds of ammunition or more than 10 guns ( any guns it did not specify, they could have been antique as well for my understanding) would have had to register as an arsenal with ATF. What that means is that you would have given up your right to search and seizure, because the police, and I mean all law enforcement there, would have been able to just walk up to your house and search it, no warrant involved. Good thing that the Republicans blocked that one.



I can see that collectors might want to own many guns. (Though I can't see why they all need to be usable. Ten usable guns should be enough for anyone.)
But why more than 1000 rounds? IIUC, it's easy to buy ammunition. Under what circumstances are you going to need that much ammunition? Unless you were thinking of starting some sort of war, or something.


Also just so you know gun control supports crime. Freedom to carry a weapon deters crime. No you say, let me ask you, If you wanted to rob someone, would you rob someone that might be carrying a gun or would you rob the guy that you knew didn't have a gun? ..... Exactly.



I'd rob the guy with the gun. Then I'd have a gun.

If I'm desperate enough to rob someone, I'm not going to care if he's got a gun or not. If I think he might have, I'm just going to kill him outright first, then rob him; whether he is carrying, or not. I might have to think a little more about how to do it, but so what? The logic is clear enough.

So, gun freedom supports murder. Freedom to carry a weapon exacerbates crime.



no.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

OCT 24, 2007 08:01 PM

NickFaust said:
Oh fuck.

This motherfucking thread is not about the motherfucking 2nd motherfucking amendment.



I thought this bore repeating.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

OCT 25, 2007 02:53 PM

NickFaust said:

NickFaust said:
Oh fuck.

This motherfucking thread is not about the motherfucking 2nd motherfucking amendment.



I thought this bore repeating.



Don't look at me.

Clidna

Clidna

Canada
January 2005

OCT 25, 2007 10:27 PM

lithocarpus said:

conservative said:
Also just so you know gun control supports crime. Freedom to carry a weapon deters crime.



BTW, drinking too much water can kill you.



True... I remember being shocked as hell when I first found that out in grade 9 science class.

Anyhow, I actually got a reply from the Chris Dodd for President link, which surprised me since I am not American, but then maybe they didn't check.


Dear Clidna*,

Let's get right to it and talk about how we stop retroactive telecommunications immunity from becoming law.

The way I see it, there are three ways to get this provision stripped from the final bill:

1.) The first step would be to make sure the idea doesn't make it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- where it will be considered shortly.

If we can get it stripped there, it will have to be offered as an amendment to the overall bill where it will be a lot easier to get 41 votes against retroactive immunity than 41 to sustain my filibuster if necessary.

Take a moment and call up members of the committee, let me know what they said, and join others in tracking our progress in stopping the provision right there.

http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

The other two ways:

2.) If retroactive immunity does make it out of committee, Senate leadership can honor the hold I've placed on any legislation that includes retroactive immunity.

3.) If leadership does not honor my hold, I remain committed to filibustering, and working to get the 41 votes necessary to maintain it.

This has the potential to be a long fight -- so let's build a solid foundation for our effort today by asking members of the Judiciary Committee to vote against any FISA bill that includes retroactive amnesty.

http://chrisdodd.com/immunity

I'd like to see a little more spine, frankly, on these issues. People tell us they want to lead, but a little leadership right now would certainly be welcomed on these questions.

I don't want to, but I'm not afraid to do this alone.

Chris




Paid for by Chris Dodd for President, Inc., PO Box 51882, Washington, DC 20091, Info@ChrisDodd.com



*This name has been changed to protect the identity of, well, me.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

OCT 26, 2007 05:00 AM

To paraphrase a great American:
With so much drama at AT&T/I cast my vote for D O double-D.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 26, 2007 08:07 PM

I think I love this man. He made a You Tube question for Republicans for their next You Tube debate.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

featured interviews