Democrats Reauthorize Patriot Act

The Democrats opposed the Patriot Act when Bush was the president, or at least they pretended to. They went on rants about how horrible it was, what an invasion of privacy it was, blah, blah. They tried to end it and to stop it and to change it because everyone knows Bush was really Hitler and he wanted to listen to granny discuss whole grain cookie recipes to help with constipation.

As a candidate for president, then-Sen. Barack Obama railed against parts of USA Patriot Act that gave the Bush administration sweeping powers to intercept phone and e-mail communications in the name of fighting terrorism with little judicial or congressional oversight, and Obama pledged to institute “robust” checks and balances if elected. PolitiFact

The PolitiFact article we written before the vote this week. In it the promise is rated as “In the Works.”

The Democrats wanted some provisions in there to add more oversight to the process but those did not make it in. They voted for it and Obama signed it anyway. In other words, the Democrats and Obama extended the very same Patriot Act that they bashed when Bush was president. They passed that which they claimed to have opposed. Obama signed a bill that contains something he was against when he was running for office. He signed a bill that does not do what he promised he would.

The Democratic Underground is not happy.

Neither is Counter Currents.

I guess this is not the change they were looking for or as one of them put it, the more things change…

Those sneaky Democrats added this to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act . They did not even have the testicular fortitude to do this as a separate piece of legislation. I think it was by design. Now they can claim they had to vote for it (and Obama can claim he had to sign it) because if they did not Medicare would suffer. Republicans have cover as well. They can claim they had to vote for it because it extended the Patriot Act.

Cowards all.

Additional source:
My Way News

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

11 Responses to “Democrats Reauthorize Patriot Act”

  1. Oh, but it’s Democrats who did this, so that makes it all right. Right? Right?

    The Left doesn’t dare to act on its internationalist/pacifist representations now, when it has near-total control of the federal government. That would take the courage of its convictions. It’s been demonstrated over and over that the Left has “the guts of a guppy.” (Zombieland) That’s an enduring condition. Expect it to endure until the Democrats are back in a minority.

    • Darrel says:

      When Porretto speaks about the “guts of a guppy” one should listen. He is speaking about something he has great personal knowledge and intimate experience with. With apologies to guppies (cause they have just a wee bit more intellectual fortitude).

      And then there is Bigd with the predicable knee jerk position. If Obama doesn’t sign on, to some degree, the Patriot Act, he criticizes him, when he does, same result. Certainly consistent in his predictable position.
      I always thought the Demo’s made a little too much noise about it. As Kerry said, parts were necessary and other parts needed to be improved because they infringed on civil liberties (as if repubs care about that).

      I’ll have to look at the details. I am guessing I will find that Bigd is wrong and some improvements have been made and Obama probably struck a balance about right. That’s just the way he rolls. But this will be nuance, and conservatives have a hard time seeing or understanding “nuance.”

      D.
      ————–
      “Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize three expiring provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. While the bill they passed STRENGTHENED CIVIL LIBERTIES IN SEVERAL SMALL WAYS, the Committee failed to make any meaningful improvements to the Patriot provisions that are most prone to abuse.” –Oct, ’09, CAPS mine.

      As I suspected.

      • Big Dog says:

        Well, just as I suspected, Darrel used something that is from Oct 2009 and is outdated. First of all, it is from the Senate Committee, not the full Congress. The important part of Darrel’s piece is:

        he Committee failed to make any meaningful improvements to the Patriot provisions that are most prone to abuse.

        But what is more important is that those items were STRIPPED out of the bill they actually voted on. From my linked article and from THIS year:

        The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government’s authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

        Notice that the provisions were CAST ASIDE when DEMOCRATS did not have enough votes. So Darrel, do you still suspect or are you sticking with your claim?

        Knee jerk? Get real. You see, I have had the same stance on the matter all along. Obama has not. He might say that changes need to be made BUT he signed it without them. They were cast off sometime AFTER October 2009.

        As if Repubs care? Dems wiretap cell phones and use them to determine location, check. And remember, Democrats could not get the votes needed for the provisions, so who is it that does not care about Civil Liberties? BTW, the House had 87 Democrats vote against this and only 10 Republicans. Still sticking with that cares for civil liberties comment?

        As is usual, you guys think anything the man boy does is great but are blinded by the Kool Aid. Next time you really should read the articles and check your dates before quoting things. It keeps you from looking like a fool.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: Darrel used something that is from Oct 2009>>

          DAR
          Right, that’s why I provided the date. This shows they have been tweaking it for months.

          Bigd: it is from the Senate Committee, not the full Congress.>>

          DAR
          Neither of which Obama controls so how can this be his fault?

          Bigd: The important part of Darrel’s piece is:

          “…the Committee failed to make any meaningful improvements to the Patriot provisions that are most prone to abuse.”>>

          DAR
          Actually, that’s liberal spin, just someone on Huff Po, giving their opinion, interpretation, from a liberal perspective. Normally that is something you wouldn’t give the slightest notice. Now you cherry pick it now and pretend it is “the most important part.” Funny!

          Bigd: those items were STRIPPED out of the bill they actually voted on.”>>

          DAR
          Did Obama do that?

          Bigd: So Darrel, do you still suspect or are you sticking with your claim?>>

          DAR
          I still suspect that the bill has been tweaked and is not identical, yes. But I may be wrong. Haven’t checked.

          Bigd: I have had the same stance on the matter all along. Obama has not.”>>

          DAR
          Well, people are allowed to change their mind about things as they learn new information. That’s actually an asset!
          I have had the same stance too. I think the Demos have made too much noise about the P. Act and were overly sensitive about civil liberties. I think republicans were to quick to dismiss concerns. So if Obama splits the difference, he’ll be right in line with me.

          Bigd: “Democrats could not get the votes needed for the provisions, so who is it that does not care about Civil Liberties?”>>

          DAR
          That would be republicans. But a concern for civil liberties must be balanced with a concern with societal safety. Opinions vary over time. This is normal and understandable.

          Bigd: “the House had 87 Democrats vote against this and only 10 Republicans. Still sticking with that cares for civil liberties comment?”>>

          DAR
          Absolutely. Your comment confirms the point precisely. Those 87 Demos who voted against it did so no doubt because of civil liberty concerns. I think you just shot yourself in the foot again.

          Bigd: you really should read the articles and check your dates before quoting things.”>>

          DAR
          Bigd, I *specifically* made a point of citing the date so you would know the date of the article.

          D.

      • Okay, hamster dick, you’re on. And you’d better have all your ducks in a row, because this offer expires at 9 PM today, March 1. No excuses will be accepted.

        Put together your best defense of global warming theory. You blather quite a lot, so you’d better be ready to produce. If I get it before 9 PM tomight, and if it contains absolutely no insults or imputations of what you call “falsehood” and “censorship,” I’ll post it at Eternity Road as a Guest Post — under your full and correct real-life name. We’ll see what my Co-Conspirators and commenters make of it.

        Give it your best shot. We’ll see who’s standing at the end.

        • Darrel says:

          FRAN: “…this offer expires at 9 PM today…”>>

          DAR
          Sorry Porretto, I don’t do deadlines from control freak cowards who have already demonstrated their word means nothing. You have lied to me too many times and the constant censorship you practice at your site is terribly boring and quite counter productive to intellectual exchange. You could learn a bit from Bigd on this. He has the courage to stand and fight for his convictions. You don’t. You use censorship as a tool to hide and run and waste a persons time. It’s pathetic and it’s childish.

          If you and your friends would like to step it up to the full adult level and try interacting without a censorship safety net to protect your untenable positions, then post it on our freethinker forum. Or maybe Bigd will post it here. No censorship, no threats, no deadlines followed by locking threads and running away. So I’ll still spank you Francis, here or on my site. I am just not going to waste time on your site when you have shown you don’t keep your word.

          Oh, and I will be going through and roasting Goobers 13 points. I want to make an example of it and do a really good job. I’ve got a good start on it (I spend a couple hours doing some background reading on #1) but then you locked the thread and wouldn’t let me respond after you said you would. This was discouraging and because of your censorship and cowardice this project got bumped to the very end of the line of my “to do” list.

          I will be posting it on our freethinker forum where there is nary a threat of some power monkey wasting my time with locking threads and shutting down discourse because of fear of a dissenting opinion. I’ll be sure and send you a note when I do. Maybe you can let “Goober” know? That would be great. I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

          Darrel Henschell.
          ———————-
          ps. Isn’t it cute how Porretto constantly complains about insults while most of his posts contain nothing but insults? There’s a word for that. Starts with an “h.”

  2. A look at sotomayor’s record,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHCBmpfr0t4

    reveal where the bill of rights is headed under this regime.

  3. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, the issue is that the items were stripped out. So they reauthorized the same thing. Yes, people can change their minds but it is a bit disingenuous to do so after bashing the last guy for the same damned thing.

    If things change or he has more information then it seems he should say you know, now that I have more information I see that Bush was not wrong (or completely wrong) on the issue.

    To pretend that it is just a change of heart after the whining that was done for years is wrong.

    • Big Dog says:

      If you want to say that they voted against it over civil liberty concerns then a hell of a lot voted against those concerns. No, not shot in the foot. Waited for you to make the claim so you could not backtrack on the boatload of Dems who voted for it. So they all do not care about civil liberties?

      Or does it apply to all, they had safety concerns that overrode the concerns? Perhaps that is why it passed so long ago…

      • Darrel says:

        I can just speak for myself and of course I don’t get to see (or even read about) any of the intelligence/details going on behind the curtain that these fellows do. So it’s a guess. I think too much noise was made about it by the Dem’s in the past so I don’t have too much trouble with those that have now moved a little to the right on this issue.

  4. […] Big Dogs House » Blog Archive » Democrats Reauthorize Patriot Act […]