Boycott the Politicians

Marc Perkel of “Marc Perkel Rantz” is proposing a novel idea – boycott the politicians! See his article “Democrats Need Punishment“. (Warning: He definitely uses adult language, but I feel it is warranted. I am so outraged myself, I want to use the same expletives.) No, boycotting is not a novel idea, but boycotting the policitians is one I have not heard of before. Ordinarily, we are told we can make a difference by our votes and by writing our congresspersons.

With all the doubt over the legitimacy of voting results, we cannot really rely on that anymore (if indeed we ever could). Our votes do not count if the election is fixed. I have read and heard about how the elections are fixed from so many sources that I have come to believe it is true. I have lost faith in our voting process.

I have written my congresspersons, and I know many of you have as well. It does not seem to be making that difference we were told it would. The same things keep happening. They continue to vote for bills and laws that take away our rights and liberties. They continue to dismantle our Constitution. They are ignoring “the people”. Yet, our country and government was founded on principles like “For the people, of the people, by the people”. They are supposed to work for us; they are supposed to listen to us.

Recently, they voted for a law to spy on us without a warrant. I want to know why they need to do this? What is wrong with needing a warrant? They must have some idea of who they want to spy on, and some reason for it. Why can’t they take that information to a judge and get a warrant? By the way, this is part of those “Checks and Balances” I am always going on about. Do you trust every agent involved in this spying activity? I don’t. For all of the reasons I listed in my article “Checks and Balances and Why They Are Important“. No matter what your party affiliations, this is a fundamental issue for all of us. If we allow this to continue, we will no longer have a voice on any issue (i.e. abortion, immigration, etc).

So if voting does not make a difference, and writing doesn’t make a difference; it is time for us to provide consequences. It is time to hit them where they will feel the pain. Quit donating money to these politicians! As Marc says, “starve them”. As Marc also says, listen not to what they tell you, but in what they actually do (in this case voting for laws that dismantle the Constitution). Don’t just starve the Democrats, starve all of the politicians until our Constitution is reinstated. When they call you asking for donations, be sure to tell them why you are not going to give them your hard earned money – because they have not earned it. If they try to tell you things will be different in the future, tell them you want to see the results first, as you no longer trust their words. Or if you receive donation requests in the mail, return those requests marked “denied” with the explanation. You could also try writing them and telling them up front…

Edit:

After writing this post, I decided to check in at the White House and read this new law for myself. I know, I should have thought about that before I wrote my article. Sometimes, I am slow. This is one of those times I mentioned in the last paragraph of “Liberals, Conservatives, and The Garden of Eden” where I reacted with a conditioned (knee-jerk) response. Please forgive me, and help me understand what I am dealing with.

In reading the Fact Sheet, I am not much more enlightened than I was before. I am not fluent in legalese. I admit that I am not quite sure what it is really saying. I would appreciate any help I can get.

Of particular confusion is this excerpt:

The Protect America Act Modernizes FISA In Four Important Ways

1. The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval. The Act clarifies that the definition of electronic surveillance in FISA shall not be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. This clarification restores FISA to its original intent and means intelligence professionals will not have to go to court in order to collect foreign intelligence on an overseas target who may be planning to attack the U.S.

Specifically, “The Act clarifies that the definition of electronic surveillance in FISA shall not (bold mine) be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside (bold mine) the U.S.”

I repeat for clarification and emphasis: The Act clarifies that the definition…shall not be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. So what is it to be construed to encompass? Everything else in the Fact Sheet seems to say that this Act is all about surveillance of persons outside the U.S. That they want to be able to spy on foreign targets outside of the U.S. without prior approval from the courts.

Then, because I was not absolutely sure I knew what “construed” meant, I looked it up. I was right, it means “explained, interpreted, or translated”.

Can anyone explain what this excerpted paragraph means? Can anyone tell me what The Act is really saying? Because it sounds contradictory to me. Contradiction causes confusion, confusion leaves the playing field open to those who know how to take advantage of confusion. I really wish laws could be written in simple English…

Edit:  Duh!  I think I figured out what this paragraph is saying.  Apparently, the original FISA rules required a warrant for any kind of spying.  The paragraph is changing this restriction to no longer encompass surveillance of foreign targets.