This is his idealogical foundation.
Fox News’ Glenn Beck has heavily promoted the writings of far-right activist W. Cleon Skousen, even making Skousen’s book, The 5000 Year Leap, a central part of his 9-12 Project. Skousen is the author of several controversial works, including The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, which presented as ‘the story of slavery in America’ a passage from a book that attacked abolitionists for delaying emancipation; cast slave owners as ‘the worst victims of the system’; claimed white schoolchildren ‘were likely to envy the freedom of their colored playmates’; and claimed that ‘[s]lavery did not make white labor unrespectable, but merely inefficient,’ because ‘the slave had a deliberateness of motion which no amount of supervision could quicken.’”
And Glenn Beck is currently one of the de facto leaders of the Republican Party, the guy behind the 9/12 TeabaggerPalooza (nice signs, fellas, way to make us all proud).
Shocker.
Let’s see if I have this right : Glen Beck recommends that you read Book A , which makes him a bad guy, because that author wrote Book B ?
I just want to be sure.
Frank: Do you agree with Skousen’s points in the excerpt? Yes or no.
Well, as long as you’ve never ever EVER engaged in similar guilt by association, Frank, I guess you’ve got a point.
Jesus Murphy! Its opinions like this that make me pathetically grateful to to Canadian.
See, the white people were REALLY the ones enslaved by slavery. Negroes were secretly the masters of the plantation. The Civil War was a Negro plot to make slavery permanent by declaring the south independent.
Note to Frank: endorsing a writer means endorsing his writing.
I certainly don’t agree with the excerpts from the book about slavery, which is not to say that no cherry picking was involved — the quotes were rather short,
But even the blog’s author mentioned that the book Beck praised was the book about the Founding Fathers.
And I disagree Mattv : Endorsing a book means endorsing a book
Frank,
Let me introduce you to a concept you appear to not be aware of. I’ll answer a question directly……
Frank DiSalle
September 30, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Let’s see if I have this right : Glen Beck recommends that you read Book A , which makes him a bad guy, because that author wrote Book B ?
I just want to be sure.
……..Yes.
Unlike Skousen’s other books, The 5000 Year Leap is merely trite, juvenile, and symptomatic of arrested philosophical development, at least according to this flaming liberal.
This is not a Glenn Beck problem. Beck is who he is. This is a Fox News problem. Fox News is the malefactor here. America is full of crazy bigots like Glenn Beck. Fox News is the one highlighting and broadcasting one of them because it feels his views are valid ones.
I see DKel , you couldn’t resist a little sniping with your comment
My comment was in answer to Matt’s question . And I answered that question directly. Am I required to answer each question “Yes” or “No”?
Beck again? Really? You might as well ask the cat.
Glen Beck recommends that you read Book A , which makes him a bad guy, because that author wrote Book B ?
Well, I for one, applaud
the dry-drunk / failed Mormon please God I am a hemorrhoid get me away from this manfor getting that far up the alphabet.Bigots run the GOP. Shocker.
Tyro is right that Fox is at fault. These screaming idiots, weeping and wailing, are a dime a dozen all around the world. The crime is putting one of them on the air. Fox is the worst offender here, but I blame the whole structure of commercial media here in the U.S. For example, let’s not forget that Beck was proudly featured on CNN for about a year before moving to Fox. The whole broadcast system stinks. Sadly, the Constitution is not strong enough to protect us from too much “free speech” which really amounts to smothering all of us with paid speech by the top levels of wealthy companies and individuals in this country.
I think it’s time we ask the hard questions about Glenn Beck. For example, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990?
“I’m the victim here”-Glenn Beck to his first wife
Frank,
Without mentioning anything that will hijack this thread, yes I couldn’t resist the sniping in response to recent tap dancing you have done. I don’t think that breaks site rules on etiquette. Nor do I think it was disrespectful to you as a person.
Well fortunately, conservatives judge people based on their associations so we can fully assume they’ll be kicking Glenn to the curb in short order.
Right?
The writings of a guy Glen Beck said nice things about once: completely relevant to the matter at hand and representative of all Republicans.
Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright: shut up, you racist!!!
IOKIYAD.
See, the white people were REALLY the ones enslaved by slavery. Negroes were secretly the masters of the plantation. The Civil War was a Negro plot to make slavery permanent by declaring the south independent.
Didn’t the abolitionists also contend that slavery was morallydegrading to the master as well as the slave?
I see SaveFarris is still up to his old game…
The writings of a guy Glen Beck said nice things about once:
You mean this guy?
Beck really began touting Skousen in the latter half of 2007. The first brief mention of Skousen in the online archives of Beck’s radio show is Sept. 24, 2007. Less than two months later, Beck interviewed conservative pundit David Horowitz on his radio program. He asked him, “Have you ever read any Skousen?…
The very next week, Bill Bennett appeared on Beck’s radio program and received the same question. “Are you familiar with Skousen?” asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. “He’s fantastic… ”
Beck continued to mention the book during 2008, but his Skousen obsession really kicked in as the 912 concept began to take shape… On his Dec. 18, 2008, radio show, one month before Obama took office, Beck introduced his audience to the idea of a “September twelfth person.”
“The first thing you could do,” he said, “is get ‘The 5,000 Year Leap.’ Over my book or anything else, get ‘The 5,000 Year Leap.’ ….
By then, the Skousen family was ready to respond to the Beck-inspired demand. “We as a family,” Paul Skousen told Salon, “were preparing to publish another edition, so I contacted his office with the request that Glenn write a foreword. He was gracious and kind and did just that. That is the version we’re now publishing…
James Pratt, the book’s publisher, says Beck “has done more to bring the work of Dr. Skousen to light than any other individual in America today…”
etc.
If Obama were regularly singing the praises of Wright and Ayers in his speeches, encouraging people to buy their books, writing forewords to their books, telling people to read their books before they read anything else, then you might have a point.
Glenn Beck didn’t run for president, Wilbur. Obama as candidate finally relented and threw both guys under the bus when each became political liabilities for him, and not before; otherwise you have no idea how much further he would’ve taken his relationship with both guys and how much more he would’ve continued praising them.
“Roman Polanski is the victim of Samantha Gailey’s orifices” – Glenn Beck
too soon?
otherwise you have no idea how much further he would’ve taken his relationship with both guys and how much more he would’ve continued praising them.
It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
“…the slave had a deliberateness of motion which no amount of supervision could quicken.”
“Deliberateness of motion” is a phrase that I will long cherish.
“I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”
It’s hardly irresponsible speculation.
Glenn Beck didn’t run for president, Wilbur.
It wasn’t I who compared them, Dennis.
Obama has made perfectly clear what he admires and doesn’t admire about Rev. Wright and has criticized him openly on many occasions. And he has never espoused Bill Ayers’ youthful radicalism. In contrast, Glenn Beck treats Skourek like the second coming. The comparison, like most wingnut false equivalence, is asinine.
And irresponsible.
I’m pretty sure “deliberateness of motion” was a Depeche mode song.
Hold up here. Are you people actually havinig a discussion about whether or not Glenn Beck holds bizarre ideas? Whether he’s in the thrall of crackpots and charlatans? Whether he’s observably deranged?
Have any of you people actually watched Mr. Beck’s show? If you have, you can only conclude that Paddy Cheyefsky was a sunshine-and-lollipops optimist about the future of television. Cheyefsky’s broad parody in “Network” would actually be an improvement over the product of Mr. Beck and Fox News.
Yes, all the whippings administered to recalcitrant slaves were just deep-tissue massages.
Hold up here. Are you people actually havinig a discussion about whether or not Glenn Beck holds bizarre ideas? Whether he’s in the thrall of crackpots and charlatans? Whether he’s observably deranged?
Ha!
If you have, you can only conclude that Paddy Cheyefsky was a sunshine-and-lollipops optimist about the future of television. Cheyefsky’s broad parody in “Network” would actually be an improvement over the product of Mr. Beck and Fox News.
LMAO!
Quaker,
If you haven’t already (or even if you have), watch ‘A Face in the Crowd.’
Thanks for the suggestion, Hick. I will.
If I were working in the hot sun all day for substandard room and board, I’d have “deliberateness of motion” all right – I wouldn’t be doing jack sh*t when the overseer wasn’t looking, and as little as I could get away with when he was.
Hick, a guilty secret: I like Andy Griffith!
Hick, a guilty secret: I like Andy Griffith!
Me, too. But he’s not ‘Andy Taylor’ Andy Griffith in this one.
I know that report’s due today, but I’m being deliberate.
You sure you won’t feel this way about being a slave, Frank?
Link
Avenger: Having spent four years in the Army, I am quite familiar with the negative effects of “constant interference” in my life. As an indicator of my “Masters’” inability to “shape my life”, I left the Army the same rank I went in : a private E-1.
No one has to tell a conservative about freedom from interference by authority figures. Perhaps the liberals here ought to read that section that begins “They resented the constant interference in their lives …”, and ends, “their masters strove to limit it…”, every day Pres Obama is in office.
Frank,
Just asking a question here. Was the fact that you left the military as a buck PVT after four years of service a “negative effect” of constant interference? Or was this only the end result of “negative behavior”?
My military service didn’t start until 1990, but as an Army brat who’s father served from 1952 (drafted) until 1983 I grew up on military bases and have a great idea what the work and family life was like in the seventies and eighties.
I would dare to say that despite the fact that I have never been a slave, being in the United States military is not comparable to being a slave. First and foremost the military encourages, promotes, and rewards self-improvement. You can change your status. (I went from E-1 to E-6, got my degree and went to OCS where I received a commission.) And ultimately when you have had it, or something better comes along you can leave.
Every person I know has left the military under undesirable circumstances or at a reduced rank tells romantic tales of being a free spirit in an oppressive environment. However, the environment in the military is not unlike the civilian world in regard to what you can and cannot or should and should not do based upon a previously agreed upon and codified standard, unlike slavery where the unwritten rule was “you are different therefore you are less than human.”
Having spent four years in the Army, I am quite familiar with the negative effects of “constant interference” in my life.
Let’s see, and during that time, did you or did you not have times known as “leave time” where you didn’t have constant interference in your life, where you could go anywhere, do anything legal that you wanted to do, as long as you returned to duty when your leave was over?
If so,then you had more freedom of action than the average slave, whose bondage lasted a lifetime, and who didn’t have leave time of any sort whatsoever.
No one has to tell a conservative about freedom from interference by authority figures.
As that noted conservative politician once said:
Yes, try telling that to gays who want to marry each other:
Link
Perhaps the liberals here ought to read that section that begins “They resented the constant interference in their lives …”, and ends, “their masters strove to limit it…”, every day Pres Obama is in office.
And how has your life been interfered with since Obama took office? Do you have any specific charges or complaints to make in this area of concern?
What “master(s)” have sought to limit it for you lately, was it yesterday, last week, last month?
You do a wonderful job of being paranoid about Obama while still using correct grammar and spelling, have you thought about writing for Clownhall.com or newzwacx.com?
Dkelsmith: I checked out your blog and see you’re back from Iraq. Mega kudos for your service, sir!
I’ll second that, Wilbur.
Thanks, Dkelsmith.
And Frank, too.
DKel : I don’t blame anyone else for my actions . My response to Army discipline was to break a lot of rules, and get stripes removed. I don’t “blame” the Army for that.
And, Avenger, I repeat — the personal attacks were supposed to end . As in cease, as in not to continue.
DKel : welcome home, bro’
I prefer that to thanks for your service ; makes it sound like I was parking cars …
Welcome home, Frank (belatedly).
I only did what all the men in my family did.
Please thank them all for us.
I merely asked you some questions, Frank, and they weren’t of the “Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no!” kind.
You can choose to answer the questions as best you can or keep whining about ‘personal attacks’ even when the questions clearly aren’t personal or an attack on anything except perhaps a certain lack of logic.
a) You don’t decide how I feel about your comments – insults are insults, whether you are calling me a dry drunk , or suggesting I write for Clownhall.com or Newswax.
b) If all you wanted was an answer to a question, you could have asked a question, and forgone the opportunity to follow the question mark with some wiseassery .
a) You don’t decide how I feel about your comments – insults are insults, whether you are calling me a dry drunk , or suggesting I write for Clownhall.com or Newswax.
Which I didn’t do on this thread, so your point here is…………?
If all you wanted was an answer to a question, you could have asked a question, and forgone the opportunity to follow the question mark with some wiseassery .
Whereas this comment wasn’t wiseassery in your response to my inquiry?
Perhaps the liberals here ought to read that section that begins “They resented the constant interference in their lives …”, and ends, “their masters strove to limit it…”, every day Pres Obama is in office.
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
Correction:
I didn’t call you a dry drunk on this thread, and I don’t know why a conservative would be insulted by suggesting that their prose is good enough for my parody name for Townhall.com.
But your little joke about Obama, which I addressed, that isn’t suppose to be insulting, no, not at all.
If you can’t take it, you have no business dishing it out in the first place.
That was not a joke. The new President has and will continue to press for programs that interfere in our lives. It is that I was referring to.
And simple logic would dictate that my comment about the President , even if it were a “wiseass” comment about the President, does not confer upon you any right to dish out anything.
And, whether you think so or not, I am not the conservative whipping boy. Some of you liberals – not necessarily you, by the way — seem to think that because I am a conservative, respect, consideration and courtesy don’t apply to me.
Well, you can think that, but don’t expect me to enable your delusion.
That was not a joke.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
The new President has and will continue to press for programs that interfere in our lives.
As opposed to the old president, who just wanted unlimited authority to listen to our private phone calls* and read our emails. Not to mention his political party, which wants to dictate what we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms and how we are treated by our doctors.
(*and no, I’m not thrilled with Obama’s position on the matter, either.)
Our former President’s positions on things don’t matter much now. Why do you even with the ” ________ did it, too!” tactic.I don’t represent Republicans; I am not even registered Republican.
If you do not believe that Pres Obama is becoming our left – leaning President ever, say you don’t believe that. If you are glad he is becoming our most left -leaning President ever, say so.
I think the change he has in mind for this country is to continue the Nanny State birthed by Roosevelt and dragged to puberty by Johnson.
And I am not happy with that.
I think the change he has in mind for this country is to continue the Nanny State birthed by Roosevelt and dragged to puberty by Johnson.
That was not a joke. The new President has and will continue to press for programs that interfere in our lives. It is that I was referring to.
Then put up or shut up with specific ways in which you’re more limited now than before 11/04/2008,
And simple logic would dictate that my comment about the President , even if it were a “wiseass” comment about the President, does not confer upon you any right to dish out anything.
Anyone who mutters about the “Nanny State” has lost the battle with logic.
You don’t decide how I feel about your comments – insults are insults,
How is:
“And how has your life been interfered with since Obama took office? Do you have any specific charges or complaints to make in this area of concern?
What “master(s)” have sought to limit it for you lately, was it yesterday, last week, last month?”
an insult?
That was not a joke. The new President has and will continue to press for programs that interfere in our lives. It is that I was referring to.
Again, how? This is just like Dennis whining about Obama owning “the means of production”, and has yet to answer my question about that.
I left the Army the same rank I went in : a private E-1.
That indicates some serious incompetence. Are you bragging or complaining?
No one has to tell a conservative about freedom from interference by authority figures.
Just what the Army needs, people who can’t follow orders.
How did you fail to advance beyond the lowest pay grade in the Army during a time when promotions to E-2 and E-3 were virtually automatic, and if you were still breathing after two years you were SP4? Was it because of some characteristic related to your “conservative” values, or is there another explanation?
If you do not believe that Pres Obama is becoming our left – leaning President ever, say you don’t believe that.
I don’t believe Obama is becoming our most left-leaning President ever. (Nor did I think he would be when I voted for him, much to my dismay.) The fact that you do says a lot about the state of political discourse in this country. We don’t have a politically viable left wing. The Democrats are the new moderate Republicans. The Republicans have just gone batshit crazy.
Think about it for a moment, Frank. Obama has proposed that we return tax brackets back to the Clinton years. There’s also some movement (although not enough IMO) towards toughening the regulation of the financial industry, again back to what it was 20 years ago. Are you seriously arguing that that constitutes the “most left-leaning President ever”??
Why do you even with the ” ________ did it, too!” tactic.
It’s not so much the “He did it, too!” tactic, it’s more the sheer hypocrisy and/or cognitive dissonance – take your pick – of those who were stone cold silent about the erosion of our civil liberties over the last 8 years. Or worse, those who whole-heartedly supported such things when there was a Republican in the White House.
Speaking of cold stone silent where is your support of American liberties enumerated in the Constitution. Where were you on the fight to repeal abridgement of the second amendment or incoporation of the fourteenth? I don’t hear you mentioning much about the tenth.
If Obama is to be charactorized as a moderate Republican who might you nominate for most left leaning prez?
Southern Quaker: I was not stone cold silent about the erosion of our liberties… I was constantly asking, “Except for delays at the airport, what liberties have you lost?”
But, of course, now that we have a Democratic liberal President, the homeless problem has disappeared, we are not falling all over ourselves to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan (I haven’t heard “There’s no exit strategy” since Election Dy 2008), no complaing about gasoline prices, and we’re about to turn over America’s healthcare system to those wonderful folks who gave you the Post Office, and the DMV.
AO, since the second amendment speaks specifically of a “well-regulated militia,” I believe the government has every right within the Constitution to regulate the sale of firearms. It is a public safety issue. I don’t believe guns should be banned, but I have no problem in waiting periods or licensing.
As for the fourteenth, I’m on recorded as believing that it should not apply to corporations.
We could pick apart the Constitution amendment by amendment to see where we disagree, but this isn’t our blog. I usually try to keep my comments relevant to Oliver’s posts.
Frank, I don’t happen to believe that my liberties are as trivial as being free from inconvenience at the airport. If the government has the power to listen in on my personal phone conversations or intercept my private email without a warrant, it has infringed on my liberties whether or not I am aware of the eavesdropping.
During the last two decades or so there has been ample evidence of the government spying on and keeping records of Quaker meetings and Quaker organizations. Why? Because we’re such violent radicals that we have to be carefully watched less we decide to spray paint “War is Not the Answer” on the side of the Pentagon? What about citizens of this country who have been detained and arrested for wearing T-shirts critical of the President to public events?? What about the so-called “free speech zones,” which are a much more insidious abridgement of free speech than any campaign finance law.
Of course we still have homeless (and I’m not sure how that’s a consitutional issue, anyway), who has argued differently? Honestly, I don’t remember the homeless being that big an issue during Bush’s term. And there are still voices on the left calling for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, they’ve just been overshadowed by the economic crisis. As much as I loathe some of Obama’s decisions regarding the “War on Terror,” as least there has been some movement on Guantanamo, toruture and Iraq. Not as much as I would have liked to have seen, but more than we got from his predecessor, or would have likely gotten from McCain.
The government has had permission to listen in on your phone conversations — with a warrant — for decades.
The givernment monitors phone traffic , and is not intested when I call my Aunt Sophia in Lebanon.
As for the Quakers, aren’t they also supporters of sanctuary, and weren’t once a component of the War Resisters’ League?
Pacifism comes with a price tag.
And I’d like to hear more about these people who were “arrested” for wearing T-Shirts in opposition to the President. These people weren’t disruptive or destructive? Just standing around with t-shirts?
SQ,
Indeed the Constitution speaks of a well regulated militia. It also speaks of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Liberals seem to always overlook that. Your stance on the issue of the 2nd Amendment seems to center on the issue of what regulated means. Since words have specific meanings perhaps you are unaware of the meaning of regulated at the time of the Constitution’s founding.
regulate
c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare “to control by rule, direct” (5c.), from L. regula “rule” (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, “act of regulating;” sense of “rule for management” is first attested 1715. Regulator is first recorded 1655; in Eng. history, with a capital R-, “member of a commission appointed in 1687 to manage county elections.” In U.S. history, applied to local posses that kept order (or disturbed it) in rural regions c.1767-71. Meaning “clock by which other timepieces are set” is attested from 1758.
Let us substitute the first definition of regulate, “to control by rule” for regulated in the 2nd Amendment.
A Militia controlled by rule, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The meaning of the amendment is quite clear. You may not have a problem with infringement upon the right to bear arms but the Constitution does not back you up. I am heartened by your stance that Affirmative Action is not constitutional when applied towards corporations but do not see a basis for the government or any other entity to deny a citizen equal protection under the law. You are correct that this is not a constitutional thread but you brought up the topic as a means to castigate the Bush administration. It is difficult to take liberal complaints about constitutional rights very seriously when their support of the Constitution is so inconsistant.
I share your concerns on the other issues you have brought up regarding free speech and government intelligence gathering etc. A much smaller federal government strictly bound by the 10th Amendment and States constrained by the 14th seem a pretty good place to start. The current administration has so far shown anything but a willingness to abide by the Constitution.
So again I ask you, if Obama does not fit your definition of the most left leaning president who does? Your position that the current Democrats represent moderate Republican values indicates you don’t really know many actual Republican’s views on very many topics.
you don’t really know many actual Republican’s views on very many topics.
Now that’s a load of hooey. My entire family on my father’s side is Republican, as is my husband’s family. My paternal relations are all born-again Christians (evangelical, not necessarily fundamentalist) and died-in-the-wool followers of St. Ronnie. My husbands family is slightly more progressive socially, but are firm fiscal conservatives.
My dad (the black sheep in that he is not an evangelical) voted for Bush – twice – in spite of the fact that he couldn’t stand the guy. Obama is the first Democrat he has ever voted for in his entire life.
My dad and my husband’s family are what I would call moderate Republicans. The rest of dad’s family are the so-called “values” voters* who buy the Rush & Co. bullshit hook, line and sinker. And yeah, I love ‘em, but some of their ideas are batshit crazy.
The most left-leaning Democrat is Dennis Kucinich, who never had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination.
(*btw, who the hell decided that the rest of us don’t vote according to our values?)
As for the Quakers, aren’t they also supporters of sanctuary, and weren’t once a component of the War Resisters’ League?
Pacifism comes with a price tag.
The War Resisters’ League lobbies to pass the Religious Freedom Peace Tax bill that would allow people to refuse to pay war taxes. It also advises people who refuse to pay such taxes on how to best deal with the IRS (politely explain your reasons and pay your fine). There is absolutely nothing illegal about their activities.
Perhaps you can explain to me what gives the government the right to infiltrate and spy on a group of people exercising their right to petition the government, gather peacefully, and non-violently express their political and religious beliefs?
Perhaps you can explain to me what gives the government the right…
Actually , no I cannot. Perhaps they can. If you know who is investigating you, and monitoring you, ask them why.
Well SQ it’s good to know you come from good stock. Sounds like Obama fooled your old man but he shouldn’t feel bad, he’s not alone. If you are bothered by this alleged infiltration of innocent Friends meetings perhaps you should consider if voting for politicians who want to increase the size and scope of the Federal government’s involvement in everyday life will lead to more of that or less of that.
Remember Emanual’s famous quote about crisis and opportunity, once established, government workers need to justify their existence on occasion. Somewhere some federal employee is earning his keep watchdogging pacifists.
The government has had permission to listen in on your phone conversations — with a warrant — for decades.
What’s your point? SQ said:
If the government has the power to listen in on my personal phone conversations or intercept my private email without a warrant, it has infringed on my liberties whether or not I am aware of the eavesdropping.
Teensy bit different.
or incoporation of the fourteenth?
Like legalizing gay marriage? Oh wait…
Zython: Oh, wait , my ass ! I never said I was opposed to gay marriage , and a matter of fact, you probably don’t know this but conservatives – real conservatives , not the boogeymen you make up in your head – are divided on the issue of gay marriage.
And, SQ is wrong — there were no warrantless wiretaps in the Bush administration.
And, SQ is wrong — there were no warrantless wiretaps in the Bush administration.
Har! Frank, you funny.
“Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretaps,” John Yoo, WSJ, JULY 16, 2009
NSA Wiretapping: The Legal Debate, Maria Godoy, NPR, October 4 2009:
“President Bush authorized the taps on domestic phone calls and e-mails shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But the program remained secret until last December.”
And from The Huffington Post, July 10 2009
The administration admitted in 2005 that it had allowed the National Security Agency to intercept international communications that passed through U.S. cables without seeking court orders.
Which has nothing to do with tapping personal communications in the U.S.
But, whatever you say
Which has nothing to do with tapping personal communications in the U.S.
Unless, you know, one end of that communication was in the US.
And, as numerous reports, including the ones SQ cites, make clear, what was admitted by the administration in 2005 is like the little pool of chocolate sauce on top of the lava cake.
Honestly, wiretapping, with or without warrants has been prevalent for so long, I am not clear as to what rights, if any, are being violated.
I do find it interesting that that seems to be the ONLY evidence of rights lost, due to the campaign formerly known as The War on Terror .