President Requests More Power

An article in todays Washington Post by Anushka Asthana and Karen DeYoung states

"President Bush urged Congress Thursday to give him "additional authority" to continue his administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. The speech was his latest effort in several days to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by framing the election-year national security debate to political and policy advantage.

Bush asserted that his administration has filled many of the security gaps exposed by the Sept. 11 attacks but said he needs more power to adapt to changes in the threat. "

I recieved a response from Senator Harry Reid on the 6th and posted it here on the blog. All I can say is that I hope those who are fighting to prohibit the President from violating the Constitution stand strong for the people of the US.

AT&T is not the President, nor are they part of Homeland security. I ask the President, why not simply start your own federally funded Homeland Security telephone company? You could call it Patriot Communications, and then you could force all other companies to cease business and use the new federally funded telephone to spy whenever you want. Oh, that's right, you have no need for that course of action, you have AT&T in your pocket. AT&T sees nothing wrong in giving the federal government access to its customers record, and offers full reign to the NSA for surveillance of the American People. Maybe AT&T should change their name to the Patriot Homeland Security Telephone and Telegraph Company. Or even more appropriate, American Tattletale Telephone.

I have a brilliant solution, in return for our President invading every aspect of American lives, until the need subsides for federal eavesdropping, if the President is willing to pay for everyones telephone service, then we can let him listen in all day and night long. Free, federally funded telephone service, including cell phones and internet access! Wow, we all could save $300 or more every month and the President would not have to violate the US Constitution! The only people who might not be in agreement to this would be the owners and stock holders and employees of the telephone companies. They would have to take a deep cut in pay and shareholders would lose it all because it would be funded by the federal government. The most recent reports showed the CEO of AT&T making about $1.2 Million a year - gee could he live on a federal salary of $45,000? Also, there would be no need for multiple service companies, which would drop the rate for service so low the government could afford to fund it.

Here's the problem - this could never happen because America believes in free enterprise, and capitalism. So the question at hand is simply, no Capitalism and Free Enterprise versus no Constitutional Rights, which is worse?

Wake up call! Neither! No communism, no dictatorships, no violating the Constitution! Reality check for the government - read this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WE THE PEOPLE!!! It does not read The Office of The President of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..

As much as President Bush believes that this is what it says, he should add the Constitution to his list of "ekkaklekatic" reading materials. He does not need more power and he should stop asking for it. Checks and Balances, Mr. President, Checks and Balances!

Just a humble American opinion.
Sandra Bonadonna 09/08/2006

Technorati Profile

Response from Senator Reid

September 6, 2006



Mrs. Sandra Bonadonna
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117

Dear Mrs. Bonadonna:

Thank you for contacting me regarding warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA). I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, last December, The New York Times reported on the existence of a covert program under which the NSA monitors the telephone calls and e-mails of individuals, including Americans, without obtaining a warrant under the procedures set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Although Administration officials contend that this program is limited to people with ties to terrorism, additional concerns were raised by a USA Today report that the NSA also has collected the phone records of millions of American citizens.

On August 17, 2006, a federal district court judge in Detroit ruled that the warrantless wiretapping program violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that requires the government to obtain a warrant for intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States. The Justice Department immediately filed an appeal of this ruling, and the surveillance program will continue for the time being.

You may also be interested to learn that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has introduced legislation (S. 2453) that would largely authorize the NSA program, subject to a review by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. While Senator Specter deserves commendation for conducting oversight of the NSA program, I believe that his legislation would amount to ratification of a program that does not adequately protect the privacy of innocent Americans.

The court's ruling is the latest example of how the Bush Administration has failed to implement balanced and effective anti-terror policies. The Administration's decision to ignore the Congress and skirt constitutional protections has jeopardized the security and liberties of the American people. It is time for the Administration to work with the Congress to develop effective tools to prevent terrorist attacks.

Please be assured that I am continuing to monitor this matter. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers Senator Specter's legislation and related proposals.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,
HARRY REID
United States Senator


HR:ss


Technorati Profile

Traitors, Liars, Killers

This story is more upsetting to me than any other. This former American, Adam Yehiye Gadhan, is a traitor of the worst kind. The words former American, are mine, and it is what I hold this terrorist to be. Basically he is saying that if we don't convert to Islam we can expect to die. How dare you! Who do you think you are? You are so weak minded that you turn against your homeland to take up with terrorists, and threaten your own people? Yes, you are weak minded, as is anyone who follows you in your cause. In this great country you are free to speak your mind, to disagree, to create movements explaining your cause. But what do you do? You pack your bags and take your sorry ass over to another country and befriend and buddy up with people whose sole agenda is to destroy our way of life and mass murder innocent people. People who have no quams killing innocent people all in the name of what? Islam? Give me a break. You are asking people to convert to being murderers, liars and traitors. Either convert or we will kill you. That's a great message, you idiot. Here's a thought, shave your face, take the turban off, resign your citizenship to this great country, and then make a tape explaining to the parent-less children of the victims of 9-11 exactly why you have done what you did, and why your moronic ideals are so important that their families had to die. You are a terrorist, not an American. You are a terrorist, not a religous man! You are a terrorist, you are a killer! Shame on you!

These are the words of the traitor:

"Instead of killing yourself for Bush ... why not surrender to the truth (of Islam), escape from the unbelieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out so make the right choice before it's too late," he said.
"You know that if you die as an unbeliever in battle against the Muslims you're going straight to Hell without passing 'Go,'" Gadahn said on the video, addressing American soldiers. "You know you're considered by Bush and his bunch of warmongers as nothing more than expendable cannon fodder ... You know they couldn't care less about your safety and well-being."
"We send a special invitation (to convert to Islam) to all of you fighting Bush's crusader pipedream in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else 'W' has sent you to die. You know the war can't be won," he said, using Bush's nickname.
Gadahn also urged other Americans to convert to Islam.
"It is time for the unbelievers to discard these incoherent and illogical beliefs," he said. "Isn't it the time for the Christians, Jews, Buddhists and atheists to cast off the cloak of the spiritual darkness which enshrouds them and emerge into the light of Islam?"

Hey, Adam, I've got one for you - It is time for all traitorous Americans and the terrorists they blindly follow, to go to hell.

Technorati Profile

Salt Lake Grandma Puts Mugger in His Place

A 75 year old grandma from Salt Lake City, Utah, Betty Horton, took on a mugger in a grocery store parking lot. To read the full story click here.

I was watching Good Morning America this morning and saw the interview with Betty and immediately thought, "This is a great story for my blog". This is a story of inspiration, and all Americans should pay attention.

Betty, you are my hero, we need more people like you in the world. Although what she did was not safe, I would do the same thing in her shoes. The only way to bring an end to crime is to put your foot down and refuse to let it happen. I'm sure the last thing this 30 year old mugger expected was to be chased down by his 75 year old victim. Betty said she ran across the parking lot, yelling for help, and caught the man down an alley around the corner from the grocery store parking lot.
She says to the mugger, "What's the matter with you? I want my purse back and when I get it back, there's a gun in there and I'm gonna shoot you in the ear or the toe!"
The mugger apologized, explaining that he was down on his luck. Betty, being the true American she is, told the young man that all he had to do was ask for some help, instead of mugging her. She put $3.00 in his hand and said, "Now get the hell out of here the police are on their way."
Betty's response is to be admired. She helped the one who tried to hurt her, and took a huge chance on getting hurt in the process.
She proclaimed on GMA this morning, "My Irish temper got the best of me!"

Way to go, Betty!

Is it really foolish to chase down a mugger? Is it more foolish to just let it happen? If criminals know that we will fight back, will it lower crimes? Who knows, but I am taking a lesson from this 75 year old brave woman. Like her, I will refuse to give in to criminals. And like her, I will do what I can to help others who are down on their luck. If more of us reach out to help people in need, maybe we can help prevent future crimes. Who knows, just a humble American opinion.

Sandra Bonadonna

Bush -isms

Another Washington Post Article Reports:
Bush also repeated his assertion that the advance of democracy will bring to power in the Middle East countries that oppose terrorism, although free elections in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories have given power to Hezbollah and Hamas, both deemed by the United States to be terrorist entities.

Dear Mr. President:
I cannot help but ask, if FREE ELECTIONS gave power to these groups, wouldn't that mean that this is what the PEOPLE want? Isn't that democracy? Maybe we should allow the will of the people of those nations to make their own decisions, even if you don't agree.
Just a humble American opinion.
Sincerely,
Sandra Bonadonna

Democrats Target Rumsfeld

As happy as I am that the Democrats, among others are calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld, todays article in the Washington Post, made me wonder. Is it possible that history could repeat itself, and we could face the possibility of another civil war? Only this time in place of North v South, it would be Democrats v Republicans. Let's hope not, and I know it might sound silly to even consider it, but looking at the similarities of the politicians in 1860 and the current day, it raises room for question and wonder.

I read this article this morning, and although I do agree that Rumsfeld should be outed asap, the back and forth between Dem's and Republicans reminded me of my 10 and 11 year old sons. They appear to be children, with the sole focus of winning their argument, not truly effecting change. Hence, when the goal of the fight is to win in place of compromise or real change, is it unreasonable to assume that Civil War is not a possibility?

Our leaders need to focus on working together to obtain a solution, and bring and end to the conflict between the parties, or unfortunately we are all screwed.
Sandra Bonadonna
Technorati Profile

Iraq Death and Injured Toll

"We are approaching 2,700 dead Americans, 20,000 wounded, many of them missing eyes, missing limbs, facing paralysis," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.). "They want to debate that; we're happy to debate that."

Let's not just debate Senator Reid, let's get them out of there!
Sandra Bonadonna

The Answer May Surprise You: Q: Where did the Bush administration pick up its debate skills?

The Answer May Surprise You

Another blog you might find as fascinating as I did!

In My Morally and Intellectually Confused Opinion

In My Morally and Intellectually Confused Opinion
Sandra Bonadonna 08/2006

As a follow up story from yesterday, the Washington Post details the comments made by Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice when speaking at the American Legion Conference in Reno, NV.
Of course, my eyes could not believe what I was reading, and my fingers couldn't wait to start typing an editorial opinion.
(Follow this link to read the entire article. I have included excerpts from this article in my editorial.)

Along the same lines as yesterdays story, Rumsfeld is, well Donald Rumsfeld:

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that "moral and intellectual confusion" over the Iraq war and the broader anti-terrorism effort could sap American willpower and divide the country, and he urged renewed resolve to confront extremists waging "a new type of fascism."Drawing parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II, Rumsfeld said it would be "folly" for the United States to ignore the rising dangers posed by a new enemy that he called "serious, lethal and relentless." In a pointed attack on the news media and critics of President Bush's war and national security policies, Rumsfeld declared: "Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.""

Democrats responded:
Congressional Democrats angrily responded to Rumsfeld's remarks. "There is no confusion among military experts, bipartisan members of Congress and the overwhelming majority of the American people about the need to change course in Iraq," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "The only person confused about how to best protect this country is Don Rumsfeld, which is why he must go."Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he took exception to what he considered the implication that critics of the administration's military policies are unpatriotic. He noted that there are "scores of patriotic Americans of both parties who are highly critical" of Rumsfeld's handling of the Defense Department.Rumsfeld obliquely acknowledged mistakes and setbacks in Iraq, quoting the French statesman Georges Clemenceau as calling all wars "a series of catastrophes that results in victory." Moreover, in a reference to recent charges of war crimes against U.S. troops in Iraq, Rumsfeld said that "in every army, there are occasionally bad actors -- the ones who dominate the headlines today -- who don't live up to the standards of their oath and of our country."

And then the following comments were made by Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice:

Rumsfeld stressed that it is misguided for Americans to fall into self-blame and to "return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world's trouble." He blamed the U.S. media for spreading "myths and distortions . . . about our troops and about our country." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, addressing the same audience later, sounded similar themes. "The dream of some, that we could avoid this conflict, that we did not have to take sides in this battle in the Middle East, that dream was demolished on September the 11th," Rice said. Rice said in a radio interview that "we cannot fall prey to pessimism about how this will all come out," adding that "the really devastating problem for the world would be if America loses its will."

Let's consider for a moment that Rumsfeld or Rice really believe what they are spouting to be truth. First, lets address the statement that Americans seem to think the America is the real source of the world’s trouble. I don't know any Americans who would hold this to be true, rather it would be more fair to say that more Americans believe our current administration is an active player in the world's troubles. As a patriotic American, I can't imagine blaming ourselves for anything. Our leaders are making all of the decisions, not based on what the American people want, but based on what they (our leaders) want.

In regard to Rumsfelds comment that Americans who are not in agreement with them are suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion", once again one is forced to ask who is really suffering from these conditions? Is the President hosting a tyrannical world leader at the White House and then vacationing with him? What is our current relationship with the government of Saudi Arabia? Which American corporations are making billions rebuilding Iraq, and who are the owners of those corporations related to, or close friends with in the current administration?
Do the elite of this country, that support the Republican party financially stand to lose money if we withdraw from Iraq? What would happen if we held Saudi Arabia to the same standard as we have Iraq? Would it be financially devastating to the richest Americans? In the big picture, exactly who is suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion"? And by the way, what exactly does intellectual confusion mean?

Condoleezzza, Condoleezza, Condoleezza, I'm almost at a loss for words.
"The dream of some, that we could avoid this conflict, that we did not have to take sides in this battle in the Middle East, that dream was demolished on September the 11th,"

I could be wrong but did Sadaam Hussein, and the people of Iraq plan and carry out the 9-11 attacks? I thought it was Osama Bin Laden, and the terrorist freaks from countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? And Condoleezza, didn't we effectively remove Hussein from power and give Iraq leaders that we approve of based on our Freedom Agenda? How does the Freedom Agenda correlate with the events of 9-11. We were attacked, shouldn't we focus on bringing the attackers to justice?

"we cannot fall prey to pessimism about how this will all come out," adding that "the really devastating problem for the world would be if America loses its will."
Hey, Condi! I have two words for you, and maybe you should do some research on these two words VIETNAM WAR

Will there come a day when the leaders of our country stop referring to those who don't agree with them as unpatriotic or simply stupid? Will there come a day when they realize that it is okay to admit they made a mistake, do all they can to correct it and move on? Will there come a day when they stop using one of the most tragic days in American History to further their twisted agendas?

What is the date of the next Presidential election? Just a humble American opinion.

Technorati Profile

HYPOCRISY IN THE WHITE HOUSE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801282.html

Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!
This is the link to the Washington Post Story, "With Kazakh's Visit, Bush Priorities Clash
Autocrat Leads an Oil-Rich Country"

I read this, and then immediately thought of Donald Rumsfeld's comment about suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion". It would seem that this comment would accurately describe our President.

The article states:
'President Bush launched an initiative this month to combat international kleptocracy, the sort of high-level corruption by foreign officials that he called "a grave and corrosive abuse of power" that "threatens our national interest and violates our values." The plan, he said, would be "a critical component of our freedom agenda."
Three weeks later, the White House is making arrangements to host the leader of Kazakhstan, an autocrat who runs a nation that is anything but free and who has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing the bulk of $78 million in bribes from an American businessman. Not only will President Nursultan Nazarbayev visit the White House, people involved say, but he also will travel to the Bush family compound in Maine.'

Are you kidding? We should stand behind our Presidents Freedom Agenda, leave our troops in Iraq, support the fact that he is spending federal dollars to "launch an initiative to combat international kleptocracy" and in the mean time one of the more psycho leaders of the world will vacation with our First Family.

Personally, I am just happy that his Presidency will soon be coming to an end, this is past the point of ridiculous.

Technorati Profile

Rumsfeld Comments

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14570794/

This news article is on today's MSNBC news page. I read it and was offended.
It is titled, Rumsfeld: War critics suffer ‘moral confusion’

It reports that "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease “a new type of fascism.”"

Again! Heaven forbid anyone try to take a stand against President Bush and the current administration.

Question: If we have removed Sadaam Hussein from power and replaced him with someone our federal government approves of, then how are we trying to "appease a new type of fascism"?
We are not in Iraq because that is where the terrorists are, we took over the country, according to our federal government, to give the people of Iraq the freedom we think they want.

I personally am so fed up with President Bush's focus on Iraq. If we truly want to rid the world of terrorists, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Hell, why don't we just nuke the entire Middle East and wipe it off the face of the Earth?
Oh, that's right, if we did that we wouldn't be able to make any money rebuilding it once we destroy it, and oops forgot how important that oil is. Forgot about that.

All sarcasm aside, when will our current administrators stop accusing every one who does not agree with them of being anti-patriotic or suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion".

Just in case you forgot Mr. Rumsfeld, we live in the USA, and are protected by our Constitution which allows us to speak freely and disagree with our leaders. Shame on you for belittling those who do not see things your way or the Presidents way.

Technorati Profile