What the FUCK is wrong with protecting civil rights!

Why is the choice always framed as "What's more important - politics or a nuke at a major sporting event?" when dealinng with civil rights, national security and foreign policy.
The issue is not that liberals don't have concern for public safety and strong defense, but rather the way it is gone about.
There are already laws and procedures in place that allow for clasified wiretapping and getting a "subpoena" after the fact.
The issue Liberals have with this administratio is it is violating OUR (yours and mine) civil rights. We are not opposed to the government doing what is needed to protect us from terrorism, we just don't think civil rights should be a casulty--but when we say that--Bush and the rest come back at us with "politics" and make it out like we're in favor of terrorists nuking sporting events.

Here is my argument to the Bush/McCain politicians,conservative pundits and policy makers and conservative/evangelical voters: why not sit down and take our concerns into account--believe that we are not in favor of letting terrorists run unchecked; and we'll give you the credibility that you are not trying to run a police state. There are valid points in both camps--and this is exactly what Obama is and has been saying. But what we won't accept (and shouldn't from ourselves or conservatives) is more of the "painting with the political wide brush."

Liberals have NEVER said you have th RIGHT to call terrorists. We do say we have procedures in place and we should be open to discussing strategies that will indeed protect us--but NOT at the expense of civil liberties. It is not one or the other--we can and should have both.

Benjamin Franklin said "The nation that trades civil liberties for security will recieve neither." that is the tenant I am operating from.

This indeed is absolutely fundamental. This is why we have checks and balances; why we should want an independent judiciary.
If given this right to randomly collect at his will--with no deference to the rule of law--then who can say who will be next. We need to remember, ESPECIALLY in this time of "terror" that it is not the president who RULES, but the People and the RULE of LAW.If not we follow the Romans and our Senate becomes a rubber stamp while the plebes are having bread and circuses.
Most conservatives/Republicans do not want the all powerful executive; but the flaw (at least as I see it) is the argument Bush and the rest have that we are to "trust" that they will not abuse it:
"Give us this ability to protect you--we promise we don't want facism any more than you do."
2 Problems with that:
1> Power corrupts--absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2>What about the next guy? What about the next war? What about dissent? It is not hard to see that this could and would be abused.
Which is all that Liberals are saying. We're not trying to tie anyone's hands or help teh terrorists.
1> You are covered under the current process and laws2> If there is a loophole; lets figure out HOW to close it without denying the people their rights.
If we give up our rights, are we really American? and if we give up our rights, then what the HELL are we fighting for?

Fear mongering would be us stating unequivocally that "VOTING FOR BUSH's WIRETAPPINGS IS TURNING US INTO NAZI's"
We are not Nazi's and are not "sounding the alarms". We are debating WHY FISA is in place and does and can work, and why there is no need for liberals to be painted as "pro-terrorist" or the American people to have to choose between a nuke free sporting event and freedom. I personally want both.

Racial Profiling In the Atlantic

“Boat People” and Refugees:
Racial Profiling in the Atlantic
While listening to my local late newscast a piece
comes on about an "heroic" rescue. The anchorman is
seemingly elated as he explains this courageous event
of U.S. Coast Guard servicemen helping these freedom
seekers to shore . He finishes his story with the
declaration, "Since the Cuban refugees made it to
shore, they will be allowed to stay.”
Wasn't it just a few years ago our country "beefed-up"
border patrols to keep Haitians from entering. “God
knows we don't need any Haitian ‘boat people’ ", as
they were referred to on more than one occasion.
There have been MANY instances where Haitians were sent
back primarily because of our country's insane "wet
foot/ dry foot" immigration policy.
However, even this policy and seeming double standard
is not debase enough. The anchorman said the Cuban
"refugees" were "rescued" from the sea. How were they
able to make it to dry land, and thus be able to stay?
Did the Coast Guard "rescue" them and then escort
them to land? So, are our Coast Guard ships
patrolling the waters off our coast doing what amounts
to racial profiling when it come to the “tired and
wretched masses, yearning to be free."?
What is the difference? Could it be- dare I say it-
the color of the skin? Could it be that lighter
skinned Cubans, who also happen to be the ONLY Latino
group to overwhelmingly favor Republicans, are
"rescued" and helped from the bitter sea to the
welcoming shores of Florida; while black skinned
Haitians from the world’s second oldest Democracy (if
a failed democracy) are turned back to the island from
whence they came?
It is 2008, 40+ years since Civil Rights Act, over 140
since the Emancipation Proclamation and over 200 since
Toussaint L'Ouverture cast off the chains of
colonialism (and slavery) and declared the independent
Republic of Haiti and petitioned, eventually begging
its sister democracy for recognition and support. It
is 2008 and does the maul of slavery and inherent
racism so rampantly afflict us that even in our
decisions to help: 1> political refugees and 2> people
in obvious need, floating on rafts in the Atlantic;
the recipients literally live and die by the color of
their skin.

My God I hope not . . .

Wake Up To The World Around You.

In 1212, 30,000 children averaging the age of 12
years old, went to war. On a holy crusade, mimicking
the Knights trying to reclaim Jerusalem for the
Church, they set off only to be destroyed by
shipwreck, starvation and disease; or sold as slaves
in Palestine. Also during the Middle ages the
population of Europe en masse’ suffered from bad
nutrition and many lived with starvation. In addition
to these travesties, a disease we now call the Bubonic
plague laid waste to citizens regardless of national
border. Is it any wonder the life expectancy was
just over 30 years old in most areas.
These statistics even now, to our civilized ears,
cause concern. We cringe at the thought of children
suffering from famine and disease, much less heading
off to war. What is sad about these statistics is not
that they were true 800 years ago; but rather that
they are true today.
Today in 2008 these statistics are true for not just
a country but for a continent. These statistics are
more than numbers and issues, they are life for
millions of Africans everyday.
**In Africa disease, in particular HIV/AIDS is
reducing life expectancy to under 45 years of age.
**In Africa many children are thrown into the grown
up world of murder, rape and war by the age of 12.
**In Africa, famine and starvation ravage the health
of not only the countries, but of the citizens.

*HIV/AIDS has reduced the average life expectancy of
males in sub-Saharan Africa to 43 years of age, of
course this is down from the high of 65, the age where
we begin retirement, in which we will spend, on
average a third of our lives.

*millions of children are fighting as soldiers,
children who will never get their childhood back
even if they stopped today. children who have known
nothing
but war, poverty and famine. That is their life, that
is why they fight, because it is the only relationship
they can maintain, that of brothers in arms, because
they've watched their mothers and sisters die, their
fathers rape and kill BUT their brothers support them.

* Perhaps the best known image of Africa is that of
famine, in 1984 American pop-stars sang “We Are The
World”, and more than 20 years later the famine has spread.


We in the civilized, democratic West can remember and
study our own Middle Ages; and I can compare the
plight of Africa to Medieval times. But there is one
difference. In the 13th Century, there was no
civilized, democratic West; In the 13th century there
was no Super Power of America’s strength or wealth.
In the 13th century WE were not her to help and demand
help; You and I hold the future in our hands, and we
should be reminded of the bible verse “Unto whom much
is given, much is required.