SONICFROG DOT NET

More In The Gay Patriot Wars. Looking More And More Animal Farmish Everyday.

Jeff, also known as ILC, has firmly inserted himself into the spat between NDT and myself. That’s me commenting in the first paragraph:

——————–

And I do hope you’re not saying that Conservative are more equal under the law than non-conservatives, because, my libertarian friend, that would also sooner or later put you in the cross hair, and you would also be insinuating that Gay Patriot operates in the same fashion as Animal Farm, where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, which would, by your interpretation, also make you a candidate to be banned.

Here’s the part where it get’s interesting.

[Jeff adds: Apparently you have still not read my post on that subject. Please go do so, before you continue further.

Overall comments: Your one-sided recitation of the thread was unnecessary. Whatever NDT’s personal attacks on you have been, you have undoubtedly made personal attacks on him. *IF* a fair and consistent application of the rules were to lead to anybody being banned, sf (and again, that is NOT anything I favor; I’m only discussing what you keep bringing up) – to be truly fair the ban would have to include you. As for what I meant by trashing your hosts’ home and friends…First and foremost, the thread is trashed because you (like he) did not take the conflict to your blogs, where it would fit better. You’ve also trashed a conservative friend of Dan and Bruce. Again, regardless of whether that other guest has done likewise to you; I do not make observations here about your justifications or your reasons, but only of your behavior. Please note that I never accused you of trashing Bruce or Dan themselves; you have apparently misinterpreted what I wrote.]

Comment by Sonicfrog — June 23, 2013 @ 3:00 pm – June 23, 2013

To which I reply:

———————

Jeff… I did read what you wrote, which includes this:

By analogy: if this blog is a home for gay conservatives, then non-conservatives should not invoke the consistency game from within the blog. They should do it on the outside: on their blog, in private e-mail, etc. At least if the analogy holds.

Thank you point this out… That you think the rules are different for conservative over non-conservatives. Conservatives, by your own admission, get a free pass. That is NOT in the rules laid out by Bruce and Dan.

As I myself am a guest, I do not proclaim any sort of rule here;

You suggestion is noted. However, as you also acknowledge, you are also a guest. But that’s not quite true. You are more than a guest. You do have some administrative powers, as you show here and in other threads.

———-

I really hope this is not the case, but it sure does look like some animals are more equal than others. I do hope that Dan and Bruce don’t agree with that.

The War At Gay Patriot Continue….

More on the war at gay Patriot. Here is the latest.

————————————-

Jeff, also known as ILC, wrote:

Since sf talked yesterday about rules, enforcement and banning people, I’ve been thinking about those questions.

Again, it’s not my role to ban people here and I’m not about to. But hypothetically, before I did, I’d want to summarize things in my mind. Here is my view of the fight. (Yours may vary…as may Bruce’s or Dan’s, if they were here.)

NDT:
1) Opened the fight, by calling sf a bigot. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
2) Has thankfully not called for sf to be banned.
3) Is a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

sf:
1) Attacked NDT’s integrity. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)
2) Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)
3) Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

Point (3) has the following dual relevance: Conservatives have an obligation to be good hosts to their non-conservative guests…and the latter have an obligation to be good guests, not trashing their hosts’ home or friends. I think there’s a breakdown here, on both sides of that equation.

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 23, 2013 @ 12:25 pm – June 23, 2013

Jeff.

If you’re going to make a list, let me help you here. Here is the specific rule for comments at Gay Patriot:

Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

Here are the litany of accusations and falsehoods NDT made on this post. Note that I had not made a single comment on this thread prior to this, which makes it an unprovoked attack:

Dan, honest question: when are you going to get mad about this?

Don’t you realize that bigots like Pat, like Sonicfrog

Personal attack # 1

like rusty, like Vince Smetana, like concern-troll mike, actually believe, support, and endorse this?

Personal attack # 2.

Kirsten Gillibrand and Chris Coons get votes BECAUSE they say these things from people like Pat, Sonicfrog, rusty, Vince Smetana, and concern-troll mike — plus the people whose Facebook pages you cite.

Both those politician do not even live in the state I’m in, so I couldn’t vote for them. Even if they did, they would not have my vote, no matter what party they are in. This is not a personal attack.

However:

Every one of them [on his list of villains, which includes me] is calling you a racist.

He’s accusing me, with no evidence what-so-ever of calling me a racist. THAT is slander, and personal attack # 3.

Every one of them is calling you an extremist.

Personal attack # 4.

And every single one of them believes the government, the FBI, DOJ, IRS, EPA, the works, should harass and punish you because you do not vote for or obey Barack Obama.

More slander. Personal attack # 5.

Indeed, they even think you should kill yourself.

Personal attack # 6.

One can no longer assume leftists are misguided.

Am I a “leftist”???? No… And he knows it. But I’ll let this slide, even though he’s wrong, ones view on whether someone is conservative or liberal is, in the end, a matter of personal opinion.

Next bit, still talking about his list of malevolents, which includes me:

As statements like these from SENATORS show, they simply are evil and malicious bigots who will say and do anything to hold on to power.

Personal attack # 7.

When are you going to get mad about this, Dan? When are you going to stand up and say that these people [those of us on his list of malevolent] cannot call you names any more and tell you to kill yourself?

Personal attack # 8.

Again. note that I had not offered a single comment on this thread, so there is no way anyone can claim he is responding to something I said.

Further. When I asked him to back up his claim that I had done ANY of the things he accuses me of, he can not and does not offer any proof what-so- ever that I done any of them. And since, for at least five years, I have been contributing some material here via Dan, comment on this blog almost from its inception, and have myself been blogging for the last 8 years… You would think if AY of the things he says is true, there would be ample enough evidence that would confirm his accusation.

But he didn’t. Because he can’t. He can’t find a single thing to substantiate his claims, especially the most serious, that I have called Dan a racist, and extremist, that I want a Government agency of any type to harass and punish Dan, and especially that I want Dan to kill himself.

Here are the offenses that merit a ban as laid out by Bruce and Dan:

Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted.

And now, the key section of the rule:

Repeated violators will be banned.

This behaviors as you know is nothing new. He has been making these same types of false, slanderous, and mischaracterizing accusations against me for at least three years, if not more. Multiply this post by three years and the number of “personal attacks” infractions is… well… quite large to be kind.

Are the rules enforced, or not?

Here is last part of the rule.

Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

Did I violate that part of the rule?

Yes. There is no denying that.

However, here is what you wrote concerning my violations of the rules:

sf:
1) Attacked NDT’s integrity. (Personal attack on another commentor, violates GP rules.)

Yep. Note, the rule does not specific ally state that commenters who challenge another integrity will also get banned. But that’s legal parsing. I accept that challenging the integrity of another commenter is bannable.

2) Called for NDT to be banned. (The ‘nuclear weapon’ of personal attacks. Only the making of threats would be more of an attack.)

Are you kidding? Pointing out that a commenter should be banned due to multiple…. no, hundreds… of very specific and irrefutable violations (even you admit he’s guilty) is a “personal attack”?????? By that logic, those in the State Department are indeed guilty of personally attacking Hillary Clinton as the Democrats defending her claim!

Sorry. You lose on this one.

And

3) Is not a conservative, here at “the Internet home of the American gay conservative.”

Point (3) has the following dual relevance: Conservatives have an obligation to be good hosts to their non-conservative guests…

Why is that not required of NDT? Obviously it’s not, or else you’d be jumping on his case with the same veracity that you are with me.

and the latter have an obligation to be good guests, not trashing their hosts’ home or friends. I think there’s a breakdown here, on both sides of that equation.

Trashing hosts…

I’ve NEVER said a bad word about either Dan or Bruce! NEVER! Have I sometimes been critical of one political position or another? Sure! But isn’t that what this is all about, discussing similarity and differences about things?

I’m kind of thinking that one commenter, NDT, falsely accusing another, me, of wanting the host to kill himself, is trashing the host much much more than my defending myself and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that NDT is not only wrong in his accusations, but broke the rules of this blog multiple times.

And I do hope you’re not saying that Conservative are more equal under the law than non-conservatives, because, my libertarian friend, that would also sooner or later put you in the cross hair, and you would also be insinuating that Gay Patriot operates in the same fashion as Animal Farm, where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, which would, by your interpretation, also make you a candidate to be banned.

The War At Gay Patriot – Reply To Jeff and NDT.

To many people , this will not make sense. But to the two people mentioned up above….

—————————————-

Jeff…

He accused you of something different, of believing that Dan ought to kill himself. I won’t get into whether that’s true

“ I won’t get into whether that’s true”

You KNOW it’s not true! There is not one iota of evidence to support any such claim. You know that I have considered Dan a friend, and can prove it here:

Proprietor Dan Blatt, someone I consider a friend, has posted a number of my blog posts on GP in years past.

and here

Note: The guys who founded and built the Gay Patriot site, two individuals that I do feel some kinship to despite our differences (we started blogging at about the same time), are no longer much involved with the site.

and here

My friend Dan at Gay Patriot commented on the significance of Obama’s comments in relation to the Clinton budget, but everyone is missing the real significance of the “Social Darwinism” comment.

and here.

My blog-pal Dan at Gay Patriot has glowing praise for John Huntsman’s economic plan, published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Dan writes:

and here

My friend Dan at the Gay Patriot blog asked if we will ever contain the size of government, which immediately led to comments about Ronald Reagan and his battles to decrease the size of government. He may have battled, but he never acheived it.

There are a lot more on my blog that I could link to, but since there are EIGHT years worth, I figure that would be overkill. Note, some of those are posts where I disagree with Dan or Bruce. Unlike you, I have a blog of my own, and have been writing stuff for the last eighth plus years, some of which has been linked here my Dan, the guy NDT claims I want to kill himself.

There is no way you walk away from reading this and not know that exactly what my feeling are toward Dan Blatt. I don’t always agree with him. But, for eight plus years, I have, and still do, consider him a friend.

Now that I have definitively proved that the accusations against me by NDT, that I want Dan to kill himself, are proven very CLEARLY false, are you still going to support him?????

You say:

But now sf, saying that NDT has misrepresented him and attacked his integrity,

I’m not just saying it… I proved it!

I happen to know that NDT has integrity by the truckload.

Then encourage him to show it… Just once.

Meanwhile,  I’ll now up the ante.

NDT also accuses me of calling Dan a racist. And of calling him an extremist.

Either he backs that claim with proof that I did those things. Or he admits he’s wrong and apologizes. Right now his claims against me are as false as your claim that he has integrity. If he apologizes, that brings both issues to a close.

NDT. You slandered me. I do not and never have advocated that Dan kill himself. I have never called him a racist, or an extremist. Apologize.

Climate Science Writer…. Smack Down!!!!

Over at Juduth Curry’s excellent climate blog Climate Etc, there is an interesting conversation going on concerning a rebuttal by The Economist against an article from The New Republic which was a rebuttal against a previous article from the Economist!

Got that? Yeah, it gets complicated after a while. But it’s fun to watch as things don’t go a planned for the Consensus crowd. David Appell, who is a science journalist, and who should know better than to make this next statement, makes this unequivocal statement:

David Appell | June 20, 2013 at 9:34 pm |

Where exactly did the IPCC say surface temperature would rise 0.2 C each and every decade?

In which AR was that?

To which this response is immediately offered:

David Springer | June 20, 2013 at 9:44 pm |

Yer a science righter, Appell? Is it past the kid’s bedtime who does your research for you? This took me 10 seconds to find. Google ipcc warming per decade. It’s the top hit.

Answer: AR4

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

Projections of Future Changes in Climate

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Step up your game or go back to the junior league where you belong.

Ouch! That had to hurt.

There’s more on that thread, but I’ve got to go work now. Will revisit later.

The Tea Party Is Dead… It’s REALLY Official Now…. Long Live The Social Conservatives!!!!

I wrote this on my blog way back in 2009:

“””I was afraid of this. I am seeing more and more non-fiscal issues getting pushed into the TP agenda. From a link I provided in the previous post, a quote from one of the Tea Party organizers in Madera confirms that the message of fiscal responsibility is slowly being pushed to the side by those with other agendas:

—- The “Tea Parties” initially started as a tax protest movement after Democrats swept the White House and Congress. Rogers wants the “Did You Know” section on the handout to let the public know their movement like the Declaration of Independence isn’t just about taxes. “If people don’t wake up concerning our freedoms, we’re going to find ourselves completely stifled and unable to be a free people anymore.” —-

I haven’t seen the “DYK” part of the handout yet, but…..

Dammit People. Just stick to fiscal stuff. Leave the rest to others!!!!

I have been at odds with my blog-pals over at Gay Patriot, in stating that the reason the Republicans lost their way was because after the Republicans won on the “Contract With America”, fiscal conservatism took a back seat to social conservatism. Sorry Dan, but sooner or later you’re just going to have to admit I’m right on this.””””

In early 2010, I showed how the “Tea Party” was not for fiscal responsibility here:

It became clear early on that the Bush administration was not going to make any effort what-so-ever to address that issue, and instead showed themselves to be more of the same as usual type administration as far as spending is concerned. I didn’t vote for either Bush or Kerry in 2004, and I was so ticked at the economic stupidity on display for the 2008 choices, I wrote in Paris Hilton for President. I figured it couldn’t have been much worse.

You would think I would be a prime candidate for the Tea Party recruiters…. Nope.

I liked the idea, but it quickly became obvious that the weakened Republican party was laying the groundwork for massive infiltration. Running on the ideal of “smaller government” and “less taxes” is fine, but my question is always this: “What are you going to cut?”.

I usually get a response such as: “Well, entitlements are a huge reason why we’re going broke!”

“OK. So how much of the medicare and social security benefits are you going to cut?”.

“Well, we won’t know until we have our guys in office”.

Note that’s not really an answer, and I know I won’t get one. So I go to a different topic – George W Bush. He is universally derided for he spending policies. So I pose this question: “We both know that Bush spent way too much and was a “big government” President. Which of the Bush big government add-ons are you proposing we cut? Medicare-D? No Child Left Behind? Department of Homeland Security?”

I never get an answer.

The fact that the Republicans scored political points against ObamaCare by opposing cuts in medicare is all you need to know about how serious they are about reducing spending.

By September, it was clear that the Social Conservatives had taken over the Tea Party… OK, they had started taking over well before that, but that is when I wrote this concerning the nomination of several “somewhat Christian” candidates:

…political propaganda wise, the nomination of O’Donnell s a Delaware Democrat’s wet dream come true! I’m sure this is just the tip of the tragic iceberg as far as campaign ad fodder goes. The Tea Party has nominated Messianic Sharron Angle, and now the uber-religious O’Donnell. Is the Tea Party now the new Moral Majority? Stay tuned.

And this concerning Social Conservative…. Er, I mean the Tea Party gubernatorial candidate for New York Carl Paladino, who said this about icky gays:

“That’s not how God created us, and that’s not the example that we should be showing our children.”….

At that, I asked:

Someone again please try to convince me that the Tea Party is only concerned about fiscal issues.

Love it when I’m right!!!!!

The “The Faith & Freedom Coalition’s “Road to Majority” Conference“, which featured every prominent person in the republican Party, including many who might run for the Presidency in 2016, just wrapped up their sermon a few days ago. And today, the supposed “Tea Party” Fiscal Conservatives, having realized they’ve failed to pass their fiscal agenda, have reverted back to the more dominant Social Conservative agenda and passed an abortion bill that they know will never stand a chance to become law. It’s just more show to prove their religious bonafides. Can everyone please PLEASE stop pretending now that the Tea Party is nothing but a thin shell surrounding the smoldering inner core of the Social Conservative majority that is the Republican party?

PS. Remember, it is very clear that had only one or two Social Conservatives run for the 2012 Republican nomination instead of the five that split the vote between each other in the early primaries, we very well may have had a Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain as the Republican nominee instead of Mitt Romney.

PPS. Oh, and one more thing.

A few weeks ago, a guest on the local Chris Daniel radio show (Daniel is a really cool cat, I like his show a lot BTW) was trying to disown Todd “women can’t get pregnant if it’s rape rape” Akin from the Tea Party by saying that Akin was never a Tea Party candidate in the first place.

This is what I wrote on the radio host’s Facebook page:

Chris… Just caught a snippet of your radio show. On the comment that Todd Akin was not a “Tea Party” candidate… Your guest was not being forthcoming. His branch of the Tea Party might not have endorsed Akin, but others certainly did.

Before the scandal broke, there was a lot of press that said flat out he was a Tea Party candidate. From FOX News Aug 8, 2012:

“”Score another win for the Tea Party.

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin broke out of a three-way GOP primary fight Tuesday and won the nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in the fall. Akin had played up his Tea Party credentials, in an unusual primary race in which all three candidates claimed conservative, outsider appeal.

The results send yet another Tea Party-backed candidate into the general election, with the McCaskill face-off considered one of the most closely watched Senate races of the year. “”

Tea Party Caucus founder Michell Bachmann threw her support to him when he first entered the race.

Here is more support, even after the rape comment went viral. On Aug 24, Reuters reporter Nick Carey wrote:

“”Akin has real Tea Party credentials,” said Bill Hennessy, founder of the St. Louis Tea Party, who lives in Akin’s district and has voted for him since 2000.

Hennessy recalled Akin was the only politician who showed up at the group’s April 15, 2009, “Tax Day” rally in downtown St. Louis and adhered to an order not to do any politicking.

Akin’s ability to straddle America’s two main brands of conservatism — fiscal and social — enabled him to garner enough support from Christian conservatives and Tea Party adherents in the Aug. 7 Republican Senate primary to win by 6 points.

Anyone who thinks the congressman may yet exit the race does not know Akin, said John Putnam, Missouri state coordinator for the national Tea Party Patriots group and chairman of the Jasper County Republican Party, who has known Akin since 1984.””

I just wanted you to be aware of these facts. politics is a strange brutal game. It can be fun, but, if you want to survive, you have to have the commitment not to trust anyone, even someone from your own side.

Changing Minds… My Thoughts On FISA Seven Years Ago

I find it interesting how people change their minds and views on things. I thought that I’d always been against this program, but I’m wrong in that recollection. That’s the cool thing about blogging and commenting on other blogs. Having the ability to search and find old comments on topics is kind of cool…. An sometimes annoying, as I was all prepared to call out the hypocrites where for the FISA program back in the day, and it looks like I’m one of them!!!! 🙂

This is what I wrote in a comment at Gay Patriot back when the original story broke about the FISA wiretaps at the end of 2005:

1. At the beginning of the new era, 9/12, many started asking why we Americans aren’t sacrificing more. This was usually couched as a method of furthering a political agenda, as shone here. Well, the NSA wire tapping revelation is an example of the sacrifices that must be made if we are serious about preventing another attack on our soil. And no, this is not like Watergate. In this case, several key members of congress, including Jay Rockerfeller, were briefed periodically about the operation. Each of those members had ample time to express their doubts behind closed doors, and if their doubts were valid, the operation would have probably been shut down. So it’s not as if there were no checks or balances in this case. Also, Bush did not just wake up one day and decide “Hey! I’d be cool to wiretap people without court approval”. This action was set into motion with the approval of the DoJ.

   As for the legalities, I’ll leave that up to the lawyers to decide. But I’d rather have a president who is willing to push the edge of the envelope to try and protect against a future attack, rather than one who wont step over a line or two and thus leaving us more vulnerable to attack.

   Just my thoughts

   Comment by sonicfrog — December 22, 2005 @ 7:29 pm – December 22, 2005

Now I am against them. Unlike many who have changed their minds based on the “D” in front of the name of the current resident of the White House, my change of heart was not due to the events of the last week and changed long ago. I think I’ll have to credit the years of listening to podcaster / history buff Dan Carlin for bringing me around. Government abuse of power has been a constant theme on his “Common Sense” podcast… In fact, he has a brand spanking new podcast out right now covering this topic.

I’ve been looking to see if I had blogged or commented on another blog on the FISA topic between 2006 and now, but so far I haven’t been able to turn anything up. Looking back though, I think this commenter at Gay Patriot expressed the right balance of approval coupled with caution that I wished I would have written or thought at the time.

This is one of these issues that leaves me scratching my head. Even though I’m liberal, I support the government working to do things like, say….stopping terrorists from attacking us again. Using wiretaps on cel phones is clearly something that is helping to accomplish this goal, along with other modern forms of electronic surveillance.

Why is it though that the members of the Bush administration want to sidestep an established court order process for performing these wiretaps. From what I’ve read (and tell me if I’m wrong), the laws as written allow for both secret issuance of court orders and for court orders “after the fact” if it’s deemed necessary to perform a wiretap in a timely manner.

Allowing a goverment to do something completely in secret, may sound good if the initial goals are agreed upon. However, the old saying goes that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If these acts can be used against bona-fide suspected terrorists, what’s to stop someone in position of power in the government from using these against his/her own enemies, perceived or real? Let’s not forget Nixon….his downfall stemmed from the fact that he used what he thought was the power of the presidency to work secretly against his “enemies”.

Comment by Kevin — January 20, 2006 @ 8:20 pm – January 20, 2006

With the revelation of the PRISM program, I think it is safe to say things have gone way too far.

Why I Hold Certain Conservative In Distain.

I was going to title this post “Why Do I Seem To Pick On Conservatives More Than Liberals????”, but that didn’t seem quite right. Yes, it’s a rant on the “True Conservative”, something that I note I’ve done a lot more of lately than I have to Liberals. This is not a rant against the average Conservative. Many dear friends of mine fit in this category.  I love them dearly and have respect for them even on the occasions when our political views differ.

Oh crap…. I was going to type “To Be Perfectly Clear…” before the next sentence, but it’s come to my attention that President Obama uses that phrase a lot and the next thing he says that follows that is often murky at best….

But…

Never-the-less…

Let me be perfectly clear! 🙂

I hold the rabid members of both groups in great disdain, and won’t hesitate to prick the bubble of a Liberal who I see as behaving badly. I don’t mind having strong disagreements with those either side, and have indeed had plenty from both.  At the end of the day, most of my debating foes are still friends who just disagree.

But there is a line drawn when someone uses ad-homs, lies about me, completely distorts my positions, and uses the tactics that are often found on talk radio. When I say talk radio, I’m not just talking about the obvious kings of the airwaves. In the brief period of time that  Air America existed, most of the content fell into the same patterns and strategies as those used by the more successful right wing demagogs.

Blogs, especially the commenters, too often fall into the same pattern. I don’t go to Althouse much any more because of it.  One blog that is especially bad is Gay Patriot. I used to like going there, and since they started blogging at about the same time I did, I have always felt a bit of kinship, even though we’ve disagreed on matters. Proprietor Dan Blatt, someone I consider a friend,  has posted a number of my blog posts on GP in years past.  But I bowed out last summer because I got sick of the constant derogatory, fallacious, and flat out vile tone of a number of the commenters.

I do go there from time to time just to see what they are talking about. As the PRISM story has been making the rounds, I found that some of the commenters and I do for a change agree on the wrongness of this spying in principle. It was nice to have some agreement with some who don’t normally see eye to eye.  Here is what I wrote, preceded by a comment that I agree with:

• Try to imagine the Framers saying, “Of course the Post Office should keep a ledger for the government to study, of every person you mail a letter to, plus the weight and thickness of the letter. The Fourth Amendment only protects the content of letters and not information on the date, sender, addressee, weight or thickness, etc. And it’s perfectly normal that the government would want to know about every letter mailed by every citizen and would track them. What, have you got something to hide?”

Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2013 @ 10:29 am – June 7, 2013

That.

And the Verizon (and AT&T and T-Mobile and Sprint no doubt) thing is not the worst…

Dan… Strange that you don’t seen to be aware of the much bigger story. Google PRISM, which is the far more damning story that broke yesterday.

Of course, when you do that, the NSA will have not only have the record of you doing that, but also the search parameters, because they are tapped into Google servers, along with Microsoft, YaHoo, Facebook, Apple, Skype, HotMail, etc., and are not just reading “metadata”, but the data itself.

But, I suppose that is also making a mountain out of a molehill, and Hey! We’re all safe now!

As I wrote yesterday on my blog, how difficult is it for the Government to connect the Verizon (AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint) phone number of customer X to all of that persons ENTIRE internet activities?

Not very.

And this can all be done in secret because idiot politician like Chambliss and Feinstein supported, and continue to support, the Patriot Act, which as we all now see, gave the US Government open and complete access to virtually ALL our online activities! And remember, the agencies are now encouraged to share intel with each other.

How did we go from “They might spy on your library records” to this in just one decade?

The former USSR and Stalin would be proud!

PS. Oh… And just think of what they’ll do next now that their precious PRISM program failed to pick up the Boston Marathon plot!

And it can and will be done in secret, because the Patriot Act gives them the cover to do so!

PPS. Good link Live…. Gonna use that to update my blogpost from yesterday…

Comment by Sonicfrog — June 7, 2013 @ 12:48 pm – June 7, 2013

So, all is well….  Until:

• PS. Oh… And just think of what they’ll do next now that their precious PRISM program failed to pick up the Boston Marathon plot!

  Comment by Sonicfrog — June 7, 2013 @ 12:48 pm – June 7, 2013

  Actually, given the descriptions so far, I find it highly improbable that PRISM failed to pick up the Boston Marathon plot, given that the Tsarnevs were known to multiple government agencies as potential terrorists, with that information having been shared directly to the State Department by the Russians.

  I think it far more probable that the information was deliberately ignored.

  The nicer reason would be that the Tsarnevs, being immigrants, on welfare, located in a blue city, and attending a liberal college, were extended protections from scrutiny or action that would not be similarly applied to US citizens with jobs in a red state.

  The more sinister reason is that Obama wants a Reichstag fire. Given how quickly the Obama Party, the Obama media, and Obama-controlled liberal groups started blaming the Tea Party and conservatives following the bombing, I believe the latter.

  One must remember that Barack Obama, at every level in his political career, has demonstrated that he can and will use private and confidential government information to smear and destroy his opponents. It is the one consistency throughout his political career.

  With that in mind, I would say PRISM is less about keeping us safe than it is about ensuring a permanent Obama Party majority and governmental control. The Obama Party and Barack Obama machine are using this information and this access, with the collusion of the large technology companies, to destroy all opposition to their rule.

  One more point: This was more than obvious to all of us in 2008.

  So at this point, I have ZERO mercy for any supporters of Barack Obama. You can either admit that you are ignorant, greedy racists who voted for Obama based on black skin and the promise of free slop at other peoples’ expense, or you can acknowledge that you are malicious, hypocritical liars who deliberately and knowingly set out to destroy George W. Bush and the Republican Party based on standards that you yourself had no intention of keeping.

  Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 7, 2013 @ 1:49 pm – June 7, 2013

“standards that you yourself had no intention of keeping.”…. WTF????

I don’t even know what he’s talking about here. But that’s not unusual.

I did not vote for Barrack Obama in either 2008 or 2012, and do not support much of his agenda. I have gone after the current President on many occations. I  have also defended the former President  here on Sonicfrog and elsewhere when I feel that is warranted. I am a registered libertarian, but I’m not sure if that is the right place for me. I am neither Conservative OR Liberal.. I am something… Different!  I have made these facts very clear to all on the GP site, especially to NDT because he always says these weird, nonsensical, and false things about me. But it doesn’t matter. He for years has now has grouped me into this category he calls “an Obama voter”, as if that is some horrible slur.

The above nasty and unprovoked reply / attack / weirdness, what ever you want to call it, is quite tame compared to other stuff he’s regurgitated over and over toward me and other who do not tow the party line….

Hell… We’re actually somewhat in agreement, and he STILL goes all Looney Tunes on me!!!!

Thing is, when I’ve gone to liberal sites, or had conversations with very VERY left wing individuals on Facebook for instance… Sometimes things do get bad, but often it gets worked out, or we agree to disagree.

There has been far far less willingness to step back and just have a normal conversation for many on the Conservative side. But I recognize that the modern Conservative has learned the art of argument from the radio Gods of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin, where the ad-hom and insult equals winning an argument.

Yes, it does happen with some left wingers too, but not nearly as prevalent as it does on the right side of things.

The radio icons have taught a generation of Conservatives some very bad manners and mannerisms.

But I’m OK with it. The wholesale adoption of these tactics will sooner or later completely backfire at the pols. And then maybe some form of sanity will return to the GOP.

For now though, I won’t hold my breath.

Connecting The Dots… LIARS!

So…. The good folks in Washington DC are trying to defend the revelation that the Government has been data mining Verizon communications.  Here’s their defense:

Responding to the disclosure, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said on Thursday that the order appeared to be a routine reauthorization as part of a broader program that lawmakers have long known about.

“As far as I know, this is an exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years,” said Ms. Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. It was carried out by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “under the business records section of the Patriot Act,” she said. “Therefore, it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress.”

The program appears to warehouse and analyze calling “metadata” — time and number logs showing when communications have been made, but not their content or the name of any subscriber — that the government analyzes to try to identify terrorists. Mr. Chambliss, the intelligence panel’s top Republican, said that under the rules of the program, when a computer program flags a number as suspicious, the authorities return to the national security court for permission to scrutinize that person more closely.

“It’s metadata only and it’s what we call minimized,” Mr. Chambliss said. “All of these numbers are basically ferreted out by a computer, but if there’s a number that matches a terrorist number that has been dialed by a U.S. number or dialed from a terrorist to a U.S. number, then that may be flagged. And they may or may not seek a court order to go further on that particular instance. But that’s the only time that this information is ever used in any kind of substantive way.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told reporters on Thursday that he did not have a problem with the surveillance program because it was imperative in the war on terror.

“If we don’t do it,” Mr. Graham said, “we’re crazy.”

Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a news conference Thursday that the National Security Agency program helped stop a significant domestic terrorist attack in the United States in the last few years. He did not give more information on the possible nature of the attack.

Mr. Rogers (I’m so mad right now, that doesn’t even make me smile a little) show us some proof that this is indeed true.

In another report, Feinstein indicates there have been multiple foiled attacks:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein did not specify how many attempted attacks had been prevented, or the nature of the threats, but the California Democrat said there had been more than one.

OK. So which is it? IS it “one”, or is it “many”, or does this require another interesting “it all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” moment?
I noted that Sxby Chambliss says this:

“It’s metadata only and it’s what we call minimized,” Mr. Chambliss said. “All of these numbers are basically ferreted out by a computer, but if there’s a number that matches a terrorist number that has been dialed by a U.S. number or dialed from a terrorist to a U.S. number, then that may be flagged. And they may or may not seek a court order to go further on that particular instance. But that’s the only time that this information is ever used in any kind of substantive way.”

Well, except that isn’t the only data you guys are collecting, is it? In a separate story that just broke:

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

Oops!

Chambliss, you are a liar. They are NOT just collecting “metadata”… They are going for the whole shebang!

I ask you, how difficult is it for the Government to connect the Verizon (AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint) phone number of customer X to all of that persons ENTIRE internet activities?

Not very.

And this can all be done in secret because idiot politician like Chambliss and Feinstein supported, and continue to support, the Patriot Act, which as we all now see, gave the US Government open and complete access to virtually ALL our online activities! And remember, the agencies are now encouraged to share intel with each other.

How did we go from “They might spy on your library records” to this in just one decade?

The former USSR and Stalin would be proud!

PS. Oh… And just think of what they’ll do next now that their precious PRISM program failed to pick up the Boston Marathon plot!

And it can and will be done in secret, because the Patriot Act gives them the cover to do so!

Stop Goofing Around….

And give us our treats!!!!

Bill Nye….. The Non-Science Guy.

It’s one thing when a scientific dunce in the form of California’s Senator Barbara “Ma’am” Boxer says the F-5 that hit Moore Oklahoma is caused by global warming. You kind of expect such unprovable nonsense from her. But when a guy who touts himself as “The Science Guy” says the same thing… Well, I can’t let that go by.

Because the actual scientific measurements provided by NOAA of tornadoes rated F-3 and above simply does not support the statements made by Senator Boxer and Bill Nye. Even with the incredible increase in our ability to detect tornado activity in the last 20 years due to greatly improved Dopplar radar technology, the trend for larger tornado formation since 1954, is down!

Strange thing is…. Bill Nye and other strong advocates for the alarmist anthropogenic global warming faction could make an argument that AGW affects tornadoes. The formation of tornadoes relies of both warmer air AND cold air, something Nye doesn’t seem to know. Global warming might be affecting the frequency of tornado formation because it’s causing a decrease in cold systems aloft, making larger tornadoes LESS likely.

And the real world observations provided by NOAA supports that hypothesis, as the trend of observed larger tornado occurrences does seem to have decreased a bit over the years.

But a trend of LESS larger tornadoes just isn’t useful to the global warming alarmist industrial complex, so they’re not going to follow what the real world observations seem to be suggesting.