On a long enough timeline,
the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
The above is the tagline for the blog, Zero Hedge, where I found two articles related to the now infamous National Security Agency (NSA). From the first article, I share this partial quote:
When it comes to the conversion of the US into a totalitarian state, few things are quite as symbolic as the construction of the NSA’s Bluffdale, Utah Data Canter,…
I agree with that sentiment. But, it was the second article the got my blood boiling when I read the following:
Moments ago, an unlikely grouping between a 33-year old Republican, Rep-Justin Amash, and an 84-year old Democrat, Rep-John Conyers, resulted in a House vote, that if passed, would have suspended the NSA’s “indiscriminate collection of phone records” and effectively ended the program’s statutory authority. Yet despite significant lobbying by the White House, security experts and representative on both sides of the aisle, the vote came within a startlingly close 12 votes of passage. A majority of Democrats, 111, voted for Amash’s amendment despite the full court press while 83 Democrats voted no. The GOP vote was 94-134. …
I couldn’t believe what I had just read. The House had a chance to pull the plug on the NSA’s spying on Americans and they fell 12 votes short. 134 Republicans voted against our unalienable rights! More liberal Democrats voted for our unalienable rights than Republicans. I am thoroughly disgusted with those 134 Republicans.
Fox News covered the story this morning.
The defense spending bill passed 315 to 109. The amendment was voted down 217-205 on an issue that created unusual political coalitions in Washington, with libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberal Democrats pressing for the change against the Obama administration, the Republican establishment and Congress’ national security experts.
Republican Congressman Mike Rogers position was”
“Have 12 years gone by and our memories faded so badly that we forgot what happened on Sept. 11?” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the Intelligence committee, said in pleading with his colleagues to back the program during House debate.
And, self proclaimed Tea Party Queen, Michele Bachmann, felt much like Rogers:
“Let us not deal in false narratives. Let’s deal in facts that will keep Americans safe,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., a member of the Intelligence committee who implored her colleagues to back a program that she argued was vital in combatting terrorism.
The Fox article reminds us of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act and that:
Two years ago, in a strong bipartisan statement, the Senate voted 72-23 to renew the Patriot Act and the House backed the extension 250-153.
Folks, in the opinion of this old man, there is absolutely nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act. Let me tell you about the day I learned of the Patriot Act.. In those days, my wife (Venezuelan) and I owned a small restaurant in city in the eastern part of the country. We were getting ready for the lunch hour and I had the TV tuned to the Spanish version of CNN. President George Bush was announcing that the only way to protect our rights was to take some of them away. He was talking about the Patriot Act. My wife was alarmed to find me with tears in my eyes and demanded to know what wae wrong. When I explained what the American President had just said, her first reaction was that was a good thing. It wasn’t easy to explain to someone who didn’t know American history or anything about our constitution and who had no concept of man’s God-given-right to live free why I was so upset. To this humble observer, the Patriot Act was telling al Qaeda and every other two-bit terrorist in the world that America got their message; that America is now officially terrorized. So terrorized that American will be giving up some of their freedoms so that the federal government can do a better job of protecting them. Friends, our Founders knew full well that when choose security over freedom, they will get neither and will deserve neither.
So, because of 134 House Republicans, we missed a golden opportunity to put this whole “national security” issue front and center for a thorough public debate about what our government should and should not be doing. I’m mad! I’m mad as hell!
By the way, if you are interested, the complete platform of the New Federalist Party is now available. This is a new political party that has been started by my friend, Steve Dennis, of American’s Watchtower, and some other patriots. I do not know that a third party is the way to go. But, I do know what we have now is not working!
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
25 thoughts on “134 House Republicans Vote Against Our Unalienable Rights”
I agree that the Republicans are going farther and farther off base — with their support for endless military interventions, for their support for a weak but bullying foreign policy, for their support of immigration, and on and on. The GOP can’t hold its base together anymore. It is a watershed in our country’s history. I’m afraid what we’ll end up will be five or six parties, small ones each, representing some part of the center right. This is very bad news for everybody, not just the Republicans. The guy who broke the Snowden story won’t be alone in demanding an end to the police state.
I share your concern, Norma, but isn’t it better to not sell out our pricipals and accept beinng a loyal opposition party than going along to get along?
Scratching my head on how we are going to end the police state. One look at the vote tally and the tea party folks were happy to sell us out.
I really believe the Republicans missed a golden opportunity to open up a needed public debate on the security vs freedom issue.
Reblogged this on Mb50's "Liquid Mud" Rant.
Thanks for the reblog. I really appreciate it.
Freedom? That’s a racist term!
So, I guess slavery is not a racist term, right? 🙂
This sounds like a really ignorant question… and probably is… but exactly which “unalienable rights” in the Constitution did 134 Republicans vote to suspend? Unlawful search and seizure?
The unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and clarified in the Bill of Rights. Yes, unlawful search and seizure.
It’s “unreasonable” search and seizure. Add to that no warrants and no reasonable cause and you have a textbook violaton of the Constitution.
Good points… especially the unreasonable part.
Thank you so much for the link to my blog, and thank you even more for the link to the New Federalist Party! I appreciate it more than you will ever know.
In my emotions after September 11th I supported the PATRIOT Act but I now see how misguided it was.
I guess what this vote shows us is that once these people assume more power they are not willing to let it go regardless of what party they belong to and that is why I think a third party, started by average Americans, is the way to go.
It is ironic that my Congresswoman, Democrat Carol Shea Porter, voted to end this program because it is the first vote she has ever cast that I agree with.
You’re welcome, Steve, The security vs freedom issue needs to come out in the open for public debate. The Republicans missed a golden opportunity and I am really mad about that.
GOP = lunatics. Absolutely no clue, running about like chickens with no heads…
I am completely disgusted with all of government.
Sadly, until the majority of the electorate is disgustef, nothing will change.
Too many NeoCons. They go for the big government solutions, and pose as great a threat to the Republic as regressive democrats.
I agree, Matt. We who believe in the constitution are a minority. There are not enough people who care enough to bring about change, in my opinion.
I do believe that many of us can be better defined as libertarians. I am rethinking the wisdom of voting R because it’s only a tad better than voting D these days. Better to put the efforts into promoting the constitution and only supporting those who do.
I’m with you, Freedom!
WE THE PEOPLE are SCREWED!
I’ll be linking to this post next week, Jim.
Can’t argue with you on that point, AOW.
INALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE MENTIONED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. THEY UNFORTUNEATELY DO NOT USE THE SAME LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER THE SEARCH AND SIEZURE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE VALID. BECAUSE A WARRANYT
IS TO BE SPECIFIC IN THAT IT MUST STATE WHAT IS TO BE SEARCHED FOR AND OTHER PROVISIONS TO KEEP A SEARCH FROM BECOMING A WITCH HUNT. EXAMPLE ONE DOES NOT SEARCH FOR A PISTOL IN A MATCH BOX. THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF LOOKING THROUGH EVERY WORD ONE SAYS TO FIND A FEW WHICH MIGHT FIT A SCENARIO AND BROADEN THE SEARCH INTO A VERY RANDOM EVENT.
Thanks for coming by, Dave. It’s always good to have more voices joining in the conversation.
The Declaration of Independence is one of our founding doccuments. The Bill of Rights was necessary to convence the original colonist to vote for the new constitution. The Bill of Rights was to remind the federal government of the specific limitations it had when it came to our unalienable rights.
Welcome to Asylum Watch, Peter. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Yes, the Brits and the Europeans are a ways ahead of us on the road to “Progressive” hell. But, in the true American spirit, our “Progressives” are determined to catch and pass them by.