The Gun Toting Liberal Blog

Government intends to "google" your personal records and information without restraint

If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, then nothing will. Have you ever heard of data-mining? If not, you are going to be introduced to it here today. Since I'm not much of a "techie", let me just break it down to a "non-digital" analogy for you.

Data-mining is a technology which will enable the Government to come into your home without a warrant, without your knowledge, and without your consent; then root through your drawers; peek under your bed; break into your fireproof safe and look at your private photos, documents, mementos, and diaries; go to your business or place of employment and sift through any and all paperwork on file with them concerning you; then go to all of your doctors and sift through any paperwork they might have on you; then hit the streets and ask all of your neighbors, friends and family to see what they might have to say about you.

All of this just to check and see if you might be a "terrorist"; and all of this with only Government employees standing by, supposedly to ensure your civil liberties are being protected as the Government does this without even obtaining a lawful warrant in the first place. The Government will have the power, the incentive, the means, and the authority to do all of this with the help of this technological advance called "data-mining". And it is very real, and it is a threat to you, your freedom, your liberty, and perhaps even your health.

Like it or not, you now live in a digital world. You live in a digital neighborhood, in a digital home, and you work at a digital office. You see a digital doctor, you file digital taxes, you seek help from a digital lawyer. You have been "digitized", my friend, and much of what you would consider to be your "private business" has been burnt digitally to somebody's computer's hard drive somewhere.

In your "brick and mortar" world, the one I referred to above, there are still a few pesky little Constitutional "obstacles" which are still standing in the way to safeguard your personal, private affairs from the intrusion of the Government.

But THIS frigging Government seems to believe that the Constitution does not apply to your "digital" world at all. In fact, they are working around the clock to find a way to circumvent that pesky little thing called your "Constitution". This Government has now found a way to flip over stone after stone in your personal life without your knowledge or consent, until they are completely satisfied that you are not a "terrorist", and they have every intention of doing just that. How do you like those apples?

And now, for a much more professional and in-depth breakdown of what "data-mining" actually is, where it is at, and where it is headed, we turn to the Christian Science Monitor:

In 2003, Congress voted to shut down a controversial program called Total Information Awareness (TIA). The project, which would have linked major information databases together in order to "hunt for terrorists," was shut down primarily because of privacy concerns, but also because its main advocate was Adm. John Poindexter, known for his involvement with the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. Wired.com reported at the time that US senators from both parties, saying "they feared government snooping against ordinary Americans," voted to block funding for TIA.

It now appears, however, that the controversial program, which was first brought to the public's attention in 2002, is continuing. The National Journal reported Thursday that TIA "was stopped in name only" and has been continued within the National Security Agency (NSA), the intelligence agency now fending off charges that it has violated the privacy of US citizens in the domestic wiretapping scandal.

Okay, so this very much sounds illegal, unpopular, and intrusive at the very least. But that is exactly the mindset of THIS Government. "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear" is the way this Government bases it's logic when it comes to it's Citizens. That is a disgusting point of view, and always has been as far as I am concerned. It is obviously a point of view our very own Forefathers detested as well, as they risked their very lives to agress against it.

Ask yourself this question. Have you ever had a very bad day and thought in a moment of insanity that it might be a good idea to see if you can find a gram of something or other, even though you haven't done drugs in years? You ask a few buddies and they say, "Are you out of your frigging mind, bro? Hell no, I don't know where you can get any of that." So he goes online to his blog and writes "My buddy was out of his gourd tonight, looking for some dope", and the Government's little "google thingie" turns it up and relates it to YOU even though your good buddy didn't even mention your name. All this, even though you later came to your better senses after blowing off some steam and never actually did purchase the dope?

Have the elections ever gone the opposite way from the results you were hoping for, so you blew off a little steam and stomped around in a hissy fit, talking negatively about your country and maybe even saying something in a crowd out of pure disappointment like "Man, maybe we'd be better off if the bad guys just nuked Washington!"? You didn't really mean it, but you did say it, and since THIS Government is desperately looking for anything and everything they can, it comes up in their disgusting little "google toy" and you are now on some Government "watch list".

Check it out:

This is not the first time the story of continued funding for TIA programs has surfaced. The Associated Press first reported two years ago to the day that the government is still financing research to create powerful tools that could mine millions of public and private records for information about terrorists despite an uproar last year over fears it might ensnare innocent Americans."

"Might" ensnare innocent Americans? MIGHT? You can bet on it. After all, we are talking about a Government here that lacks basic good judgement and believes it is a fantastic idea to turn our ports over to foreign Arab nations, believes it is okay to wiretap American Citizens, believes it is okay to force American Citizens to carry national ID cards with computer tracking devices in them (RealID), and believes it is okay to leave our borders wide open because Americans will supposedly become angry if they have to pay another fifty cents for their strawberries while we ponder a SAFE way of allowing the Mexican people of good intent to work toward their dream. And THIS, is the very same Government who has been in charge of these failed projects, for crying out loud. How confident does that make you feel when you think about it?

But there is good news in all of this:

Finally, the National Journal also reports that ARDA is being taken out of the NSA and placed under the control of Negroponte. It will renamed "Disruptive Technologies Office," a reference to a term of art describing any new invention that suddenly, and often dramatically, replaces established procedures."

Apparently, even THIS Government understands this is a "disruptive technology". But that doesn't mean they do not intend to use it either. In fact, you can bet on the fact that they have every intention of doing so.

Here is some last food for thought, no matter which side of the aisle you may hail from. The following words are from Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and one-time Contributing Editor of National Review:

"Americans need to understand that many interests are using the "war on terror" to achieve their agendas. The Federalist Society is using the "war on terror" to achieve its agenda of concentrating power in the executive and packing the Supreme Court to this effect. The neocons are using the war to achieve their agenda of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Police agencies are using the war to remove constraints on their powers and to make themselves less accountable. Republicans are using the war to achieve one-party rule--theirs. The Bush administration is using the war to avoid accountability and evade constraints on executive powers. Arms industries, or what President Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex," are using the war to fatten profits. Terrorism experts are using the war to gain visibility. Security firms are using it to gain customers. Readers can add to this list at will. The lack of debate gives carte blanche to these agendas."

I don't know about you, but this blogger thinks this issue needs to be debated, destroyed, and then swept into its rightful place amongst the pile of all other failed assaults upon the United States Constitution and our civil liberties.

And believe you me; that "pile" smells every bit as offensive as it appears.

Finally weighing in on the ports deal between the U.S. and the U.A.E.

Okay, I've avoided commenting on this issue so far, at least in MY blog. I've commented about it in other peoples' blogs, but have avoided addressing it here until today. I'm sure everybody knows what all the "hoopla" is about, but in case you've missed it, here is the latest article about the deal in the Washington Post. If you aren't aware of what's going on, read the article, then hit the back arrows until you return to read my personal opinion on it. My ego demands it. Just kidding, of course.

Up until now, the only thing I've touched on in this debate is the Arab American reaction to the situation where they have resorted to calling us all a bunch of "bigots" for opposing the ports deal with the U.A.E. You can read that post here, or if you don't feel like clicking anymore, my major point to that ludicrous charge was the fact that I believe that nobody would have said much about it at all if the "company" in question were simply an American company, owned and operated by American Citizens who just happened to be of Arab decent.

But onto the ports deal itself, and how I feel about it...

As you can probably guess, I don't "rightly cotton to it" very much at all.

While the right is still pretty much split on the issue, the spinners are ferociously trying to make the President's point that this is our valuable ally in the war on terror, and we can't "offend" them by backing out of the deal, and they are partially right, but then again, my mother always said even a broken clock is right twice a day. The U.A.E. is indeed a valuable ally in the war on terror... BUT... remember:

It really wasn't all that long ago when our Government was allied with, and afraid to "offend" a gentleman by the name of Osama who was a key ally in our war against Soviet agression against Afghanistan.

It really wasn't all that long ago when our Government was allied with, and afraid to "offend" a gentleman by the name of Saddam who was a key ally in our cold war with Iran.

So now we have this great new ally, and I do actually agree that they are a fantastic ally in this war against terror... today. But we all know just how stable the Middle East is (not!) right now, don't we? And we all know how "friends" and "enemies" can change at the drop of a hat, or even at the drawing of a damned cartoon for crying out loud, do we not?

I'm not going to bash on the U.A.E. like the rest of the country is at the moment, because I believe that they really are trying, as is Qatar, to become a good citizen of the world. Democratic reform is on the move in both of these countries, and the cities over there are on the grow, and they are making great strides toward embracing civil liberties for all of their citizens. They may even be within a decade of becoming much like our own America of the 1950's, and my hat is off to them for that.

But I'll also tell you that anybody who has dwelled over in that region as I, myself did during my military service over there will also tell you that it is common knowledge that both countries do in fact harbor terrorists. It's a fact, and that in itself is a good enough reason for the hackles to raise.

You may be asking yourself, "How can the U.A.E. be our allies and harbor terrorists at the same time?" That is a great question of course, since our President himself once said "If you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist..." But as it turns out, it is not just as simple as that, as the President himself is quickly learning.

While the U.A.E. may harbor terrorists, those terrorists are to mind their "P's" and "Q's" while they are over there, and they are, under no circumstance, to make their gracious hosts look bad or embarrass them in any way. Attacking America from U.A.E. soil, attacking American troops from U.A.E. soil, or attacking American troops on U.A.E. soil would bring shame and embarrassment to the government of U.A.E., therefore; it's a good way for a terrorist to find himself very dead, very quickly. They are welcome to spend their money there, and they do spend lots of money indeed, but they are definitely not free to operate from there.

I truly believe the President and his supporters on this deal have their hearts in the right place. The U.A.E. is admirable at guarding ports, and they are probably offering their services to our country at a great price. The President, being a died in the wool Republican, believes we need a huge, overbearing, and perhaps sometimes even illegal "authoritarian government" on the one hand, but a penny pinching, tiny government in all other areas. This is why he is trying to "save a buck" and "give a buddy a job" when I believe we need to do the exact opposite. He is just trying to show the U.A.E. that "good global citizenship" works both ways, and he is just "hooking them up" for being so helpful up to this point; I truly do believe that. But then again, my mother also used to warn me that the "Road to hell was paved with the best of intentions.", too.

As you already know, I am a died in the wool "Liberal" (not a Democrat; a LIBERAL). Therefore, I would naturally subscribe to the belief that our ports should be operated by a division of the U.S. Government, perhaps even our military, but definitely not by some foreign company. I would, without hesitation, say the same thing goes for our borders. The ports and our borders are one and the same when it gets down to it.

I am aware that the spinners from the right are now contending, "Well, you didn't have a problem with a British company guarding our ports!", but I think it's safe to say most of us didn't even realize that were the case. I don't know about you guys and gals, but everybody I've talked to had no idea Britain was in charge of our busiest ports, nor did they seem to approve of it once they learned of this fact. I wonder how that one slid under the radar screen. I'm fairly certain we didn't have blogs then, or there would have been a tremendous debate on the subject.

The port deal is definitely NOT a very good idea. While it follows conservative principles, it also clearly demonstrates what is an achilles heel and a definite weakness of "pure conservatism". I will concede that "pure liberalism" has it's areas of weakness as well, but I do not elaborate on them here very often because my agenda of course, is to convert every one of you all to liberals because of the obvious selling points that come embedded with enhanced life, liberty, property, justice, and fairness, but we'll cross those bridges at a later time.

But back to the point at hand, and wrapping it up. You aren't automatically a "biggot" because you oppose this deal. You are completely correct to question whether or not it is worth saving a buck or two to have an actual division of an Arab country's government ("company", indeed!) guarding and/or managing our nation's busiest ports. And you are also not being unreasonable to just say "no" to it either. Dig your heels in.

It may be a bargain, but it is also a potentially, deadly gamble.

Posted by GTL -

***** Crazy Politico's Rantings has linked to this post with Breaking Some Myths

***** Freedom Folks has linked to this post with Weekend Round-Up

Technorati Tags: Bush ports terrorism UAE

Why such a deafening silence in right wing bloggosphere regarding the South Dakota Senate's new abortion ban law?

Actually, it is not all that surprising, at least not to moi. After learning yesterday that South Dakota Senators have voted to ban (source: Washington Post) all abortions unless the mother's life is directly threatened by going through with the childbirth, I couldn't wait to see what the bloggosphere of the right would have to say about it.

Obviously, the lefty bloggosphere is having a field day with this obvious assault on the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision, fearing the end of the world over this new legislation coming out of South Dakota. And just as obviously, the wacko far-right bloggosphere is pretty much all excited that Jesus Himself is decisively, firmly placing His righteous hand to the wheel of American politics and taking America back from the "pits of hell". But what about the average conservative blogger? Why is he and she remaining largely silent on this issue thus far? I'll get to that in just a second.

I surfed through a handful of the top ranked right wing blogs in the TTLB Ecosystem today, and before finally getting bored with looking any further, only the Captain's Quarters had weighed in on the topic at all. Even so, he only speculated upon the legislation's chances of defeating Roe v. Wade, but failed to voice his opinion on whether or not he agreed that all abortions should be illegal as the legislation has dictated.

Here is why I think the popular right wing bloggers are remaining largely silent on whether or not this was the right thing for the South Dakota lawmakers to do: if a large number of voices from the right were to begin weighing in with "yeah, let's ban all abortions" type opinions, you can just kiss the Republican Party and the conservative movement goodbye. It would amount to political suicide for them because I firmly believe that countless conservative women would suddenly move away from the Republican agenda to stand solidly with the left to defend a woman's right to choose.

Take a look at this legislation and you'll note that there are no other exceptions for legal abortion - none. If you are a woman and you get raped, tough, you are still going to give birth to the child, even if it is a case where incest is also involved. Giving birth to the child is going to cause a health problem for the mother? Tough; you're still going to give birth to the child, period, end of story.

Make yourselves look like a bunch of "Roy Moores" to moderate America, and you're going to pay dearly in the elections, isn't this correct, my right wing bloggosphere friends? I would tell my fellow liberal bloggers to relax; this legislation doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of toppling Roe v. Wade. It is nothing but a feeble attempt by the far right to do so, but again, it will never fly.

I am assuring you right now that the Republicans do not really want Roe v. Wade overturned deep down. If the GOP were ultimately, responsible for toppling Roe v. Wade, I promise you it would spell doom for GOP domination when they are already doing a fine job of committing political suicide anyway with their failure to seal our borders and their assaults upon most of our other civil liberties at this time. At the very most, the GOP'ers will give this issue roughly, the same amount of lip service and the same amount of actual action that they give to the "borders" issue (i.e., virtually zero), so relax, lefties...

It's going to be a-okay - this is a guaranteed "W", and I'm not referring to our President either.

UPDATE - This post seems to have caused quite a "stir" in the bloggosphere, and apparently, has even aroused an element of the media

Bloggers from the right are having an issue with my opinion:

***** The Smokeless Gun disagrees with me here: South Dakota

***** Political Nut takes offense with me here: Liberal Theory

Other links to this post:

***** Salon's Daou Report has linked to this post today, where Jet had cross-posted it to Bring It On

***** Bob Geiger has also mirrored this post

Technorati Tags: South Dakota abortion abortion ban Roe Roe v. Wade

GOP Spokesman for Bush-Cheney Campaign blasts Wal-Mart and joins Wal-Mart Watch group???

I just love it when these rare circumstances arise where a politician actually goes as far as to put what is best for his or her country ahead of what is best for the party. The readers of the Gun Toting Liberal blog can count on me to tip the hat to those brave politicians who dare to do just that, as rare as it might be.

This news (source: Washington Post) actually happened last week, so if you've heard it before, please pardon me. For the most part, it slid under the media's "radar screen", but I feel it needs to be brought to light. Today's tip of the hat goes to none other than hardcore GOP hatchet man, Terry Holt.

He and Goeas say there really isn't any oddity in Republicans working with Wal-Mart Watch, which is fighting for Wal-Mart to improve employee health care benefits, opposing tax incentives for the company to locate in various communities and raising other issues about its business practices.

"They are perceived as a left-of-center organization but they've asked some important questions," Holt said of Wal-Mart Watch. "They've put real Main Street small-business questions on the table. . . . A good debate is good for business everywhere."

As I Googled around on this fresh (to me) news, it turns out that Mr. Holt seems to have joined Wal-Mart Watch for the right reasons. Apparently, like myself, Mr. Holt would like to see Wal-Mart:

Start buying American again -

Stop basing their entire business model off of importing their vast majority of goods from China to America -

Start providing better healthcare options for it's workers -

Stop being such a burden upon the taxpayers as the "corporate welfare" machine it has now become -

Also, Mr. Holt also believes that Wal-Mart, as it now exists, poses a huge danger to small business growth in America. He is correct on all of the above, of course, and this blogger wishes him the very best of luck in his newfound capacity as an official spokeman for this anti Wal-Mart group.

When pressed by a stunned Neil Cavuto on FoxNews today, which is where I happened to catch this story in the first place as I flipped through the cable news channels hoping to catch something new, this one statement by Mr. Holt caught my immediate attention and respect:

"I just think Wal-Mart could be a better neighbor, that's all...."

Me too, Mr. Holt. My hat's off to you. And you know what; I do not even care what ulterior motives, if any, this guy has for doing what he's doing by climbing aboard the Wal-Mart Watch team. The guy is saying what needs to be said, and his words need to be heard, at least on this particular issue.

I reserve the right to slice and dice Mr. Holt to ribbons (verbally, of course) in the future, but for now, he takes his rightful place amongst other gutsy politicos who have also stepped up to the podium to speak out against serious threats to our national security when their parties' talking points memos avoided such topics. This short list includes:

Diane Feinstein (D - border security)

Tom Tancredo (R - border security)

Joseph Lieberman (D - standing up against DNC politics in the Iraq war)

Bill Richardson (D - border security)

Janet Napolitano (D- border security)

This "short list" needs to become a "long list" for the well-being of America. Our very Democracy is threatened by our lax borders and ports, and a dependence upon our new "cold war enemy", China. Think that's going out on a limb?

Let me ask you this; where was that flag you are flying manufactured? Where did you buy it? There is a way too good of a chance your answers will be, in this order, "A) China", and "B) Wal-Mart".

How is this good for America? Kudos again to Mr. Holt!

Posted by GTL -

Technorati Tags: Wal-Mart WalMart Terry Holt Wal-Mart Watch WalMart Watch

Digging tunnels under border from Mexico to U.S. is not yet a crime? California Senator seeks to rectify this rediculous oversight

Holy moly, who'da thunk it - digging tunnels to infiltrate the United States from Mexico is not yet a criminal act! Is this rediculous, or what? The answer would be "yes, yes, it IS indeed rediculous".

Senator Diane Feinstein thinks it is rediculous, too (source: Yahoo News):

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) proposed a legislative package making the financing or construction of a tunnel beneath an international border into the United States a criminal act, punishable by up to 20 years in jail.

Border police have found 40 tunnels running under the United State's borders since the September 11 attacks. The longest, which was found on January 26, ran for 2,400 feet from Tijuana to a warehouse in Otay Mesa, California, where Feinstein gave a news conference.

Betchya thought this act was already illegal, didn't ya? I know I did. I guess that is what we get for assuming. From the article:

At present, digging a tunnel under the United States' borders with Mexico and Canada is not itself illegal.

So there we go. It is not a crime after all. Go figure!

You know something, I will be watching this one closely, and it had BETTER be passed into law ASAP, and unanimously, with none of that extra "pork barrel" crap tucked into it either. This is not a frigging game, it is an emergency, and any politician who tries to turn it into a game will be held accountable by America.

Both liberal, and conservative America are screaming for our leaders to stop screwing around with our ports, to stop screwing around with our borders, and to do their frigging FIRST duty of protecting the Citizens of the United States. Obviously, if it's not yet illegal for al-Qaida to build damned tunnels into the United States from Mexico or Canada, we have us a serious "oversight".

I'll tell you something right now; the average American will be joining me in casting their votes for the people who have proven by their actions that they are genuinely concerned about protecting the Citizens in upcoming elections. There will be no hiding behind a (D), or an (R) this time. It will not be enough to just go around pointing fingers and criticizing other politicians for the deadly border situation any longer. Border and port security will continue to be the most important issue to most voters from now on; count on it.

Thank you, Ms. Feinstein, for taking action, and as for the rest of you people on the Government's higher office payrolls...

DO YOUR JOBS, damn it! We ARE keeping a close eye on you.

Posted by GTL -

Technorati Tags: security borders Feinstein

A Game of Chicken, Anyone?

Nigerian officials are close to determining that the source of the outbreak of Avian flu in that country was caused by the import or smuggling of domestic birds.

If it turns out that trade, not nature, was responsible for introducing H5N1 to Africa, better control of trade in domesticated birds may be able to limit the virus's spread there and on other continents, public health experts said. -- Washington Post

While the immediate economic impact of the flu transmitting through poultry movement will be difficult for farmers, the global implications of a virus not spread willy nilly by nature, but rather by the wheels of commerce is good news for earth. We may have just seen a reprieve in the pandemic war.

Posted by Jet -

Technorati Tags: bird flu H5N1

Arab American groups label fellow Citizens who oppose port deal "biggots"

(source: US News, link is in title; H/T to Ace)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Arab-Americans contended on Tuesday that bias and bigotry, not security concerns, lay behind the uproar over a deal that would place commercial operations at six U.S. ports in the hands of an Arab company.

These buffoons just don't get it, do they? This is not "biggotry". They can shove their race card powerplay where the "sun don't shine" as far as I am concerned.

I have no doubt that there would be very little if any outcry by the American public if a company that happened to be owned and operated by freedom loving, law abiding, fellow American Citizens of Arab decent were to be awarded a contract to manage our nation's busiest ports. But that is obviously not what is happening here.

I send out a hearty Bronx cheer to to these rubberheads! This is shameful rhetoric, and on top of it all, they just took a huge swipe at Liberal America, who has been their staunchest ally post 9/11 with this accusation. Apparently, these jerks haven't even taken the time to figure out that this port deal is about as popular as the eminent domain ruling was, with the majority of Americans from both sides of the aisle in opposition.

Could these people buy a clue in a clue store? I have my doubts.

Posted by GTL -

***** Liberty Just In Case has linked to this post with You know you're in trouble when...

Technorati Tags: Bush ports security politics

Supreme Court of the U.S. rules unanimously in favor of church members to continue use of illegal narcotic

Wow! Today's ruling by the SCOTUS should open up a whole slough of new debates on freedom of religious expression.

Today's big news out of the Supreme Court today is, of course, it's agreement to hear arguments as to the Constitutionality of the Government's partial birth abortion ban (source: Washington Post).

But there is other news out of the Supreme Court today; news that seems to be falling under the MSM's radar screen.

The nation's highest court has ruled unanimously in favor of a small congregation in New Mexico whose members routinely drink tea that contains an illegal hallucinogenic drug called DMT (dimethyltryptamine). From the AP (source: AccessNorthGA.com)

New Justice Samuel Alito did not take part in the case, which was argued last fall before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor before her retirement. Alito was on the bench for the first time on Tuesday.

Roberts said that the Bush administration had not met its burden under a federal religious freedom law to show that it could ban "the sect's sincere religious practice."

The chief justice had also been skeptical of the government's position in the case last fall, suggesting that the administration was demanding too much, a "zero tolerance approach."

Okay, there are a few things right off the bat that I find a bit stunning with this ruling:

A) It was a unanimous decision, with zero split between the conservative and liberal judges.

B) The Court has agreed that there are indeed allowable circumstances where illegal drug use is acceptable.

C) New conservative Chief Justice Roberts wrote a scathing opinion against the Bush Administration; only the second time he has felt compelled to write an opinion at all since taking the bench.

Many will argue that the SCOTUS has just legislated from the bench again today, but I will heartily disagree. This was not the work of "activist judges". Show me one place in the Constitution where drug use is prohibited.

Also, if I recall correctly, the Constitution does guarantee freedom of religion for America's Citizens, and it does prohibit the Government from sticking its nose in the "church bidness". Any and all asterixes to those guarantees have been added by the various activist courts throughout the years who actually did legislate from the bench, but that is definitely not what happened today.

Will this ruling reopen arguments for the unconstitutionality of laws that prohibit the believers of some religions from marrying multiple spouses? After all, if the SCOTUS has found that it is okay for a congregation to utilize Federally banned drugs because they believe it helps them to get closer to God. So then, why wouldn't it be a contradiction to say Muslims and Mormons cannot have multiple wives?

I say it definitely is a contradiction, and call me a "nut" if you will, but I think it is illegal for the Government to define "marriage" as being limited to a legal partnership between "one man and one woman." Time will only tell on that one.

Here's another one for you. One time long ago, myself and a couple of friends smoked a ton of weed, and the conversation turned to God, and it stayed there for a long time. To make a long story short, I have never seen God in the same light since. Yes, that is right; I am claiming that I moved one step closer to God that day, as did a couple of the other kids as we discussed it amongst ourselves that day so long ago.

No such thing happened the few other times I smoked pot, but I can honestly see where religious believers often do utilize drugs to get closer to their God. I don't know about your Bible, but my Bible defines that little "get together" as a "church" - a gathering of two or more in His Name. I fail to see where the Government has a right to step in and interfere with that definition, do you?

Now, back to today's ruling. I would argue that the SCOTUS just legalized the right for a bunch of potheads to gather together every week, get higher than a kite, and discuss God. You say this type of a gathering fails to meet the State's definition of "church"? To that, I say show me in the Constitution where the Government retains the right to define a "church", or a "congregation". Don't give me that "state's rights" stuff either; I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where a state is granted the right to usurp the Constitutional freedoms of an individual.

Now this is admittably really going out on a limb, but hopefully, today's SCOTUS decision will be a great step in the right direction for the eventual elimination of our archaic, expensive, and unwinnable war against recreational drug use, too. We can only hope so, because, as anybody who reads this silly blog knows, I am tired of spending my hard earned money on the Government's silly "war on drugs" anyway.

Yes, very interesting ruling indeed! This is what the President wanted; justices who will rule from the bench on the basis of the Constitution only...

... and that is exactly what the SCOTUS has done today.

Jolly good show!

Authored by GTL -

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court SCOTUS DMT activist judges judicial activism partial birth abortion

Creative Coalition Director leaves O'Reilly speechless after Bill bashes actor Alec Baldwin for comparing Dick Cheney to a "terrorist"

I love it. Now this is what I call "entertainment".

I dialed into the O'Reilly Factor tonight and Bill was expressing his disdain for Alec Baldwin's comments in the Huffington Post where Mr. Baldwin had recently compared vice president Cheney to a "terrorist" in his blog post. O'Reilly was speaking with his guest Robin Bronk, the Executive Director of The Creative Coalition, when he asked her if she thought that sort of talk was "reponsible".

Ms. Bronk explained that Baldwin was simply displaying "passion" for his country and his politics. O'Reilly countered with his point that Jack the Ripper was also "passionate", and asked her again if she thought it was "responsible" for Baldwin to compare Cheney to a "terrorist" in his blog. Ms. Bronk, without hesitation, quickly pointed out that O'Reilly himself had just compared Alec Baldwin to Jack the Ripper.

You could cut the silence with a knife as O'Reilly realized he had just been outfoxed on national television by Ms. Bronk. I can't recall verbatim what O'Reilly said directly afterward, but suffice it to say, he was pretty much just groping for words. To his credit, Bill did apologize if he had left anybody under the impression he was actually comparing Alec Baldwin to Jack the Ripper. There was a snicker in the studio as Bill quickly cut to a break.

Damn, I wish I had a video of this to share with anybody who might have missed it. Don't get me wrong, I really don't have anything against the pompous O'Reilly, nor am I particularly fond of Alec Baldwin either; I have serious political disagreements with both guys, the truth be known. But it certainly was fun to watch Mr. FoxNews himself try and squirm out of this one to no avail.

I don't watch The Factor all that often, but the last time I saw anybody get the best of him like Ms. Bronk did tonight was the first time he had Rosie O'Donnel on the show. For those of you who might have missed that one, it was the show where O'Donnel was standing up for gay adoption rights and O'Reilly at the time, opposed it. He had been daring her to come on, and when she finally did, she actually convinced O'Reilly that he was wrong on the issue after a heated debate; not something you see very often.

If you happened to miss tonight's Factor, and if you have satellite television, I highly recommend you tune into one of the late night reruns of the show for a good laugh. As you will see, Bill shall have no luck bloviating himself out of this one...

Posted by GTL -

Technorati Tags: O'Reilly The Factor Alec Baldwin George Clooney politics Cheyney

Results of last poll; new poll added

This was our last poll and the final results (49 voters weighed in on the topic):

Very interesting results. Sounds like I don't have a lot of company when it comes to believing the revamping and reempowerment of labor unions in our country would be such a great thing. Hmph!

Looking to the sidebar at the right, you'll note that I began a new poll today. I'm not sure it's imaginative enough to keep, but as of this minute, this new poll simply asks who you voted for in the last Presidential election. Only two votes have been tallied at this time, so maybe it's a lame question?

Should I keep that poll question, or should I scrap it and come up with a different one? What would you suggest? Speak your minds in the comments to this post... your input is greatly appreciated.

Posted by GTL -

Technorati Tag: polls

Boo!

All over the web, you'll see grumbles of how when Bush is in the hot seat, the terror alert goes up. People resent being emotionally manipulated. Terror, as a concept, has lost its potency.

Indeed if ever there were a case for collective restraint it is in response to terrorism. The word refers to a technique, usually a bomb, not an ideology. A bombing is an anarchic gesture calling for police and medical services. It becomes a political weapon only if publicised and answered with hysteria. A killing is so staged as to cause over-reaction, violent response, mass arrests and a decay of civilised values. Bin Laden’s intention in 2001 was to portray the West as scared, emotionally vulnerable, over-reactive, decadent and careless of liberal values. The West has done its damnedest to prove him right. -- London Times

I don't doubt there have been some thwarted attempts since 9/11. I call into question the effectiveness of trying to maintain lockstep obedience through fear. The attrition of the rank and file evidences this. Beyond the shrinking core, the average American is disconnecting from the war on terror.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself, regardless how hard the Bush adminstration tries to prove otherwise.

Posted by -- Jet

Cross posted at Bring It On!

Technorati Tags: terror terrorism Bush war on terror

GTL's winners and rotten tomato losers of the week (Feb 13-19)

First - we toss the rotten tomatoes at (it's literally, a "crap shoot" - any firing order will do)...

1. Al Gore, for shamefully traveling to Saudi Arabia when he has no business being there in the first place. He then gets another rotten tomato tossed at him for lying (source: CNSNews) to his questionable Saudi audience and telling them we are abusing Arab Americans over here. SPLAT!!!

2. Vice President Dick Cheney, for attempting to cover up (source: NewsDay) his shooting of a lawyer for who knows how long. Can't blame him for failing to apologize for shooting a lawyer, however. SPLAT!!!

3. The Muslim extremists who are going around torching buildings, harming and killing people, and offering rewards (source: Provo Daily Herald) for the heads of the Danish cartoonists, and for generally having no sense of humor. SPLAT!!!

4. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan for insisting that we free the terrorist pedophiles (source: CNN) being held in Guanatanamo Bay. SPLAT!!!

5. Senator John McCain for sending misleading letters to President Bush's major contributors, asking them to update their cards when they never did have cards on file (source: Townhall.com) with the Senator's office in the first place. SPLAT!!!

6. Anti labor Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott for suggesting employees who want improved healthcare benefits should just go find another job (source: CNNMoney.com). SPLAT!!!

And now - some hearty cheers go out to...

1. Senator Joe Lieberman (D) for calling for a complete reorganization of FEMA (source: MSNBC)... APPLAUSE!!!

2. Senator Hillary Clinton (gasp!) for opposing (source: NewsMax) the handing over of the security of our major ports to a little known company from the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). I think it's safe to assume that most Americans, including even Dems would actually favor handing port security over to Halliburton over an overseas Arab company... APPLAUSE!!!

3. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice for asking for $75M (source: NewsMax, H/T to Between the Links ) to aggressively broadcast a pro-Democracy message to the people of Iran via radio and television, and to implement programs to help Iranians study abroad... APPLAUSE!!!

4. Republican lawmakers Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Christopher Smith (R-NJ) for breaking away (source: CSMonitor) from a traditional GOP position by questioning whether free markets automatically lead to freer people in the Google search engine censorship in China rift, or if they might actually lead to the deaths of freedom seekers... APPLAUSE!!!

5. Texas Democrat Representatives Chet Edwards and Eddie Bernice Johnson for expressing a willingness to keep an open mind on a guest worker program and for voicing a willingness (source: Dallas Morning News) to back tougher Mexico-U.S. border security legislation to crack down on illegal immigration... APPLAUSE!!!

6. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), and Robert Byrd (D-WVA) for having the guts (source: Mercury News) to be the only three Senators to stand firm against renewal of the Patriot Act with it's modest provisional changes... APPLAUSE!!!

Ed. note: These people are all on my radar screen and I reserve the right to move them in, out, or back and forth from the line of tomato fire and/or the cheering section depending upon what they DO during the coming weeks.

Posted by GTL -

Technorati Tags: Al Gore Muslim Cartoons borders guest worker Hillary Clinton Cheney McCain Kofi Annon Guantanamo Bay Wal-Mart FEMA Lieberman ports Condoleeza Rice Feingold Halliburton

Guard The Borders blogburst - Feb 20, 2006

Ed. note -

Being a "border security" sort of guy, I firmly share serious concerns over our deadly border situation along with more than 90%+ of my fellow Americans from both sides of the aisle, including those in this blogroll. Let's plug our borders ASAP, and commit to paying a little more for our strawberries if we must for a couple of weeks while we figure out how to screen, and allow guest workers to safely pass through our borders.

Please do not TELL me we cannot do this; it took only a few days for our leaders to come up with the USA Patriot Act (like it or hate it).

For example, plugging our borders doesn't violate our civil liberties like the Patriot Act does, and it would even offer guaranteed, tangible security, whereas; the USA Patriot Act does not, despite the "smoke and mirrors". Please join us in stuffing the partisan politics into the trash can on this single issue, as our fellow, non-blogging Americans already have according to polls. Join us ASAP please. It is literally, a National CRISIS.

The blogburst:

MINUTEMAN CIVIL DEFENSE CORPS
ANNOUNCES NATIONWIDE ‘SECURE OUR BORDERS’ OPERATION FOR APRIL 2006
(PHOENIX, AZ) February 16, 2006 – Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (“MCDC”), today announced plans for the group’s nationwide “Secure Our Borders” campaign in April 2006. Simcox also announced a new operational structure for the original Minuteman Border Project to meet the growing needs of the continued expansion of Minuteman border security operations.

Thousands of MCDC volunteers, augmented by the new national support team, will hold border watch patrols in northern and southern states along an estimated 800 miles of international borders during the month of April. The Minutemen will observe and report suspected illegal border crossings to the proper authorities. As always, they will maintain a “no contact” policy with the exception of providing emergency water to those illegal aliens found in distress in the wilderness.

Last year, MCDC revolutionized the national debate about border security and illegal immigration by focusing the nation’s attention on the dangers of America’s wide-open borders in a post 9/11 world. The Minutemen have demonstrated that the borders can be secured with sufficient political will and dedication.

Since the MCDC 23-mile border watch in April, 2005, interest in joining and supporting the Minutemen has exploded nationwide. MCDC chapters have been formed in southern and northern border states, as well as interior states. To date, 6,500 men and women have passed the required background check and interviews to qualify to become official Minuteman Border Project volunteers – with more waiting in the queue for approval. Over 120,000 people have become friends of the Minutemen through their support and volunteer work.

Given the success of the Minuteman Border Project efforts, and two successful month long 24/7 operations conducted in April and October of 2005, a new national volunteer operational structure has been launched to support the Minutemen. The new structure is necessary to respond to these thousands of volunteers and supporters asking what they can do to help.

MCDC has asked for and accepted the help of experienced border volunteers who have been on the front lines, some for as long as four years. With this expansion we will be ready for the thousands of volunteers who will participate in the “Secure Our Borders” operation in April 2006. This expansion further solidifies MCDC’s ability to continue the largest neighborhood watch effort in American history. The Minutemen will continue their civil defense operations assisting authorities in securing the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada until properly relieved.

Contact MCDC at (520)829-3112 or info@minutemanhq.com

For more information about MCDC: www.minutemanhq.com

__________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.

Blogs already on board:

Euphoric Reality	Curley's Corner	TMH's Bacon Bits
Part-Time Pundit	The Right Track	Cao's Blog
Mover Mike	In The Bullpen	Stuck on Stupid
NIF	Kender's Musings	Freedom Folks
Parrot Check	Gribbit's Word	Right on the Right
Team Swap	Gina's Rantings	The Irate Nation
Publius Rendezvous	Watchman's Words	Bear Creek Ledger
Something and Half of Something	Ogre's Politics and Views	Independent Conservative
The Neo-Con Blogger	Ravings of a Mad Tech	Third World County
A Lady's Ruminations	Mensa Barbie Welcomes You	Intergalactic Source of Truth
Woman Honor Thyself	Adam's Thoughts	Amboy Times
Gun Toting Liberal	Right on! Blog	American Daughter
Right Truth	Universe and Other Things	A Tic In The Mind's Eye
Jarhead's Firing Range	Nova Townhall Blog

Posted by GTL -

Technorati Tags: borders Minutemen illegal immigration Chris Simcox MCDC Guard The Borders

GTL (finally) weighs in on Al Gore's recent comments on Saudi soil

My ole' bloggin' buddy, Regular Ron, recently asked me to weigh in on this topic in the comments section of another post a few days ago. I hesitated because I really wanted to think it over before expressing my point of view on the subject. I do have a strong opinion on it and now I will now be sharing it with you.

It's not likely you all missed it, but to make a long story short, Al Gore went to Saudi Arabia last week and amongst other outlandish claims, he accused us; the United States; of abusing Arabs over here on our soil. He painted a very poor picture of America, and therefore; all of us.

My first thought was to thank God that this man was not elected to the Presidency of the United States of America. Thank God above. Whether the election was "stolen", or an honestly conducted close one doesn't matter to me at all now. Thank GOD this man is not our President, for he truly demonstrated to the entire country that he is indeed no "leader".

My second thought was that Gore's rhetoric was un-American, and treasonous. Such acts at the very least shall warrant the end of his political career. He is no longer "relevant" in American politics, and I believe the whole world knows this.

But frankly, and I hesitate to say this, but it is okay with me if an American with zero political clout does something like this. He's not a leader, nor is it likely he is perceived as being one by anybody important. Hold your horses! Be careful there, bud. I can just feel you getting ready to leave this page, or to send me a "hate comment"; fine if you do, but at least hear me out first.

This is a new world we now live in; a digital world. We are America, and we have freedom of speech over here. I know, I know, but Al, "hate America" Gore went over to Saudi Arabia and made these outlandish comments on their soil. Let me ask you something: aren't your comments, and your posts on your OWN blog being viewed on Saudi soil by somebody right now? How do you know? How do you know they aren't being viewed and read by a terrorist right now? There is a great chance your blog has been read by an enemy of freedom, democracy, and liberty - in fact, you can just about count on it.

Our new world, this digital one, has no borders. This is now the world we live in, like it or not. I happen to love it, but that is just me. In case you've missed it, my analogy is alluding to the fact that it no longer matters where your feet are standing, your opinions in your blogs and websites have now taken the world stage for all to see. If you go for the jugular on Al Gore for his treasonous remarks, it is only a matter of time before they come after YOU for the same reason.

You don't think it's likely? You're niave if you don't. Trust a lawyer, or judge somewhere to come right along behind you and point out the fact that it is one and the same whether your words appear on foreign soil, or are actually voiced with your feet on their ground. I don't care how "right wing" you might think you are, many of you have words in your blogs or websites right this minute that could already be printed out and displayed as "locker room bulletin board fodder" for our enemies to get fired up and energized over. YOUR words! If Al Gore can't say it because it's going to fire up our enemies, then you can't make cartoon images of Mohammed. What is good for the goose is good for the gander in this case.

Anybody who knows me in the "real world", or has even taken the time to read this blog, despite a fair share of satirical posts here, could pretty much come to the conclusion that I have a very conservative point of view when it comes to military matters and winning this war on the terrorists. If my point of view is pissing you off on this topic, it is likely because you are also pretty conservative on these matters, too.

But let me ask you this... how will you feel when a new President, and a new Congress takes over the reins and they all have "D's" behind their names? Could your words then be considered "treasonous" by a "President Hillary Clinton"? Are you absolutely sure you want to rob Al Gore of his liberty and freedom, and his freedom to lie, or speak "anti-American" sentiments so badly that you are willing to face the same music when the shoe is on the other foot? You are drinking the "coolaid" if you do not believe it can happen, my "right wing" friends.

Correct; this is the very Liberal side of me protecting that butt monkey's right to free speech, even on the world stage. We are all now sharing that same stage with this guy now, like it or not. And I will fight to the death if necessary to protect his right to speak out and make a complete ass out of himself like he does.

So be very careful what you wish for, and tread ever-so-lightly, my friends...

Posted by GTL -

Technorati Tags: Al Gore Saudi Arabia free speech media

The Gun Toting Liberal Blog

TOP POST: today's post is directly beneath this announcement

Government intends to "google" your personal records and information without restraint

Finally weighing in on the ports deal between the U.S. and the U.A.E.

Why such a deafening silence in right wing bloggosphere regarding the South Dakota Senate's new abortion ban law?

GOP Spokesman for Bush-Cheney Campaign blasts Wal-Mart and joins Wal-Mart Watch group???

Digging tunnels under border from Mexico to U.S. is not yet a crime? California Senator seeks to rectify this rediculous oversight

A Game of Chicken, Anyone?

Arab American groups label fellow Citizens who oppose port deal "biggots"

Supreme Court of the U.S. rules unanimously in favor of church members to continue use of illegal narcotic

Creative Coalition Director leaves O'Reilly speechless after Bill bashes actor Alec Baldwin for comparing Dick Cheney to a "terrorist"

Results of last poll; new poll added

Boo!

GTL's winners and rotten tomato losers of the week (Feb 13-19)

Guard The Borders blogburst - Feb 20, 2006

GTL (finally) weighs in on Al Gore's recent comments on Saudi soil