A favorite ploy of liberals these days has been the repetitive nature of the accusation. As Bush himself once made mention, you have to repeat the propaganda... None on the left have allowed this statement to get to far into their archives instead keeping it close to the top of their stacks to invoke as an apparent example of the Bush/Cheney plan to orchestrate and then initiate any and all secretive plans from the invasion of Iraq to the proposed cancellation of the Nov. '08 elections, to the envisioned failed Iranian invasion scheduled, according to them, for later this year or early next.

But liberals have been enjoying some limited success with the same accusatory tactic in resent years with little if any defensive flack from either the White House or those in right wing radio. Since it is on the hallowed American radio waves that the debate now rages far more than in the halls of congress it seems fitting to call upon those on the left to justify and to quantify their message for once.

Rendition of American citizens and those accused due in at least some part to the Patriot Act or none FISA approved wire taps.

Jeff Farias does a local show here in Phoenix on Air America. Many here listen, I among them. Jeff is an affable guy who seems to be interested in quite a wide array of liberal issues. But when he began to go into the often propagandized loss of Constitutional Right and Civil Liberties on his show today because of both HR1955
(which is yet to go to the Senate for debate let alone a vote) and the Patriot Act it called to mind a simple thought, "prove it!" I called in.

I have on occasion brought up this subject but it has never been justifiably answered for me by those on the left. Who has been rendered from US soil and who exactly are those people whose Rights and Liberties have been violated leading to either a wrongful conviction or other punishment?

Where are those who have been arrested, prosecuted and actually subjected to a state or federally funded vacation destination?  Why, when the local ACLU representative made her appearance on Jeff's show was she not touting the current situation with any number of cases where these egregious and often draconian rules and regulations have caused suffering to an otherwise completely innocent person minding their own business?  Where is the laundry list of names associated with the various assumed violations of Constitution Law? Where and who are the affected?

I would naturally assume that with the myriad of laws broken and the over-reaches of power that there should be available a long list of those suffering under this intrusive and irrational regime. And of those affected by the Patriot Act which has been sold by the left as the deterioration of our Bill or Rights, the literal trashing of our beloved Constitution, where are the hundreds if not thousands of people filing law suits to find those missing and hundreds, perhaps even thousands more filling the streets with the demands for the release of those taken by thieves in the night without the proper legal documentation required by the 4th Amendment? Surely there would be, if the assumption of these violations is to be believed, people demanding action in the names of those affected.

The ACLU at the very least, I would think, would be up to their necks in alligators fighting for the release or the redress of grievances of these find upstanding citizens caught in the web of deceitful wire taps and infiltrations of both public and private organizations. The affected surely would be screaming to high heaven so to speak to be heard...

Upon Jeff's return from a break he did indeed supply a few names. Professor Kevin Barrett, the disgraced University Prof. and Ward Churchill sidekick who taught conspiracy theories in his class. I spent some time searching for the events Jeff mentioned, about Barrett's house being broken into by police lacking the "legal documentation" for such an entry but to no avail. If you know where it is please forward it to me.  But his background as a vocal proponent of 9/11 conspiracy and his affiliation with Muslim Christian Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth would seem an appropriate reason for him to be looked into. Someone who claims to know a truth where some other truth exists would seem notable enough of a reason for the government to desire to keep an eye on him in the public interest. That and his long standing as a trouble maker I am sure moves him up a page or two on the list of those who could quite possibly represent a threat in some way, shape or form.

There is of course a place in this great nation for questioning authority. It could be said that this represents the very essence of Americas roots, questioning the authority of the King to reign supreme over a people desirous of their own freedom. But when no freedom has been taken it becomes an academic exercise.  Then there was Ann Wright and her BFF Medea Benjamin who were denied entry into Canada because it is alleged that their names appear on an FBI watch list. I was surprised by this but had heard Benjamin's name a week ago so I did more research finding that she is begging for the government to keep an eye on her by her choice of activities. From Cuba to being anti-trade, she has become a spokesman of sorts for just about every anti-American organization you can find. And Wright, who left her position in the state department quite publicly too has been making the rounds to promote her name in certain circles that the government is sure to have an interest in.

These are far from the average everyday working stiff who is caught unaware in a cyber-dragnet then brought up on trumped up charges only to be rescued by the ACLU or some other saver of lost souls from the clutches of a run away federal monster. Again the idea of, "if you ain't got nothing to hide, you ain't got nothing to fear" comes to mind. But I know that simplistic 2nd grade mentality is far from sufficient for a constitutionally questionable application of law. So I would offer that those not making themselves a target probably (in general) would not have a reason to fear being wrongfully accused of a crime as any interaction they would have would not raise any red flags for investigators to focus on. So far this theory appears to be correct.

Besides, would it not make more sense if your desire was to simply rid yourself of annoyances like Benjamin and Wright, to allow them to leave and then deny their re-entry into the country? That would be a constitutional question wouldn't it? And as for Professor Barrett, his activity keeps him on a short leash when he constantly creates a reason to be watched by his choice to be involved in a number of questionable organizations, just like our two find upstanding ladies are involved with. By the way, none of these "radicals" were rendered either.

So where are these affected? There are none. If there were they would be paraded nightly by Katie Couric and the rest of the network anchors along with CNN and the rest of cable. Not because they are biased but because that would be a huge story.
Every news outlet would be clambering for a story like this. But alas, they simply are not there to be clambered over...

But what would I know; I'm just an Average American.