Questions that Leftists/Liberals Seemingly refuse to Answer (NOWHINE)

[brainlessone]

its like the Dare program. teach the kids all about drugs when they dont know anything about drugs, so they can get curious.

then they can get a little older and know how to use them when they are offered to them.

doesnt it make sense to you?

isnt it the right thing to do?

its so cute, teaching a kindergartner about sex!

its not dirty you know, so why are you being so puritanical

[Warhorse]

Razors questions libs won't answer. Thought I might list them here so I can chip away at them where the question then the answer can't be deleted.

I answered this one to start with.
3. 25 rights that liberals have lost since 2000 - #msg-16635828
( 0 Answers thus far )

1. Leftist "Tolerance" #msg-16635551
( 0 Answers thus far)
2. Leftist Strategy for a WINNING victory in Iraq - #msg-16635762
( 0 Strategies Revealed thus far )
3. 25 rights that liberals have lost since 2000 - #msg-16635828
( 0 Answers thus far )
4. Bankruptcy at lib radio - #msg-16639232
( 0 Answers thus far )
5. List the WMD "lies" - #msg-16642481
( 0 Examples of lies thus far )
6. Foley vs Studds Page scandal - #msg-16660968
( 0 Explanations thus far )
7. Fighting terror in Iraq bad, Fighting terror in Darfur good? - #msg-16679546
( 0 Answers thus far )
8. How does DEMANDING peace work? - #msg-16709160
( 0 Answers thus far )
9. Liberal intolerance for Christians - #msg-16728412
( 0 Answers thus far )
10. Why did Clinton link Al-Qaeda/Iraq in 1998? #msg-16879401
( 0 Answers thus far )
11. Concerning the global warming debate.. #msg-19323934
( 0 Answers thus far )
12. Some questions for the Democratic candidates.. #msg-20990899
13. Obama and explicit sex education in Kindergarten classes???? #msg-21426608

[Warhorse]

Well now, That should keep you busy. It might take you sometime to read all of it and then check the references at the end. But I believe I have answered your question regarding the 25liberties lost under bush.

Now I know you will never take the time to read it. And I expect you to remove it from this commie thread.

[Warhorse]

"terrorist organization," Section 411 does not prohibit the removal of a non-citizen on the grounds
that he solicited funds for, solicited membership for, or provided material support to, an
undesignated "terrorist organization" prior to the enactment of the Act.
64
Endnotes
1. This article is an excerpt from the forthcoming book, Silencing Political Dissent: How
Post-September 11 Antiterrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties, by Nancy
Chang, which will be available from Seven Stories Press in March 2002. This article is
available as a free eBook on the Seven Stories Press website,
http://www.sevenstories.com.
2. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56.
3. Adam Clymer, "Antiterrorism Bill Passes; U.S. Gets Expanded Powers," The New York
Times, Oct. 26, 2001, at A1; Robin Toner and Neil A. Lewis, "House Passes Terrorism
Bill Much Like Senate's, but With 5-Year Limit," The New York Times, Oct. 13, 2001, at
B6; Jonathan Krim, "Anti-Terror Push Stirs Fears for Liberties; Rights Groups Unite To
Seek Safeguards," The Washington Post, Sept. 18, 2001, at A17; Mary Leonard, "Civil
Liberties," The Boston Globe, Sept. 21, 2001, at A13.
4. Adam Clymer, "Bush Quickly Signs Measure Aiding Antiterrorism Effort," The New York
Times, Oct. 27, 2001, at B5.
5. Amy Goldstein, et al., "A Deliberate Strategy of Disruption," Washington Post, Nov. 4,
2001, at A1.
6. See 66 Federal Register 48334-35 (Sept. 20, 2001). Congress denied the Attorney
General's request for the codification of this interim regulation in the USA PATRIOT Act
and limited to seven days the time aliens suspected of terrorist activity can be detained
without charge. Although the interim regulation would appear to be in tension with the
Act, it has not yet been rescinded.
This interim regulation appears to have been drafted with the holding of County of
Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), in mind. In County of Riverside, the
Supreme Court considered the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals who had been
arrested without a warrant and placed in detention. The Court ruled that after such an
arrestee has been held in detention for 48 hours, the burden shifts to the government to
show a bona fide emergency or an extraordinary circumstance for failing to provide the
arrestee with a judicial probable cause determination. In marked contrast to the arrestees
in County of Riverside, all of whom were arrested based on a probable cause finding by
the arresting officer, the interim regulation has been drafted to support the detention of
any non-citizen in this country, even when a basis for suspecting him of a criminal or
immigration violation is entirely lacking.
7. Dan Eggen, "Tough Anti-Terror Campaign Pledged," Washington Post, Oct. 26, 2001, at
A1.
8. This undated letter was sent to Senators Bob Graham, Orrin Hatch, Patrick Leahy, and
Richard Shelby. A copy of this letter is on file with the author.
9. Bryant Letter at p. 9 (emphasis added).
10. USA PATRIOT Act § 802, amending 18 U.S.C. § 2331.
11. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
12. USA PATRIOT Act § 411(a), amending 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb).
13. USA PATRIOT Act § 411(a), amending 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VI).
14. Out of concern for the dangers that the USA PATRIOT Act's enhanced surveillance
procedures pose to our privacy, and over the strong objections of the Administration,
Congress has scheduled some-though not all-of these procedures to sunset, or expire,
on December 31, 2005. See USA PATRIOT Act § 224(a). However, Congress has
exempted from the operation of any sunset clause: (1) foreign intelligence investigations
that began before the sunset date, and (2) offenses that began or occurred before the
sunset date. See USA PATRIOT Act § 224(b).
15. 121 S. Ct. 2038, 2046 (2001).
16. Id.
17. USA PATRIOT Act § 213, amending 18 U.S.C. § 3103a. The definition of the term
"adverse result" in Section 213 is borrowed from a statute establishing the standards
under which the government may provide delayed notice when it searches stored email
and other wire and electronic communictions-searches that are not nearly as intrusive as
physical searches of one's home or office. The term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2705(a)(2)
as: "(A) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; (B) flight from prosecution;
(C) destruction of or tampering with evidence; (D) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
(E) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial."
18. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 929 (1995).
19. 899 F.2d 1324, 1337 (2d Cir. 1990).
20. 800 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir. 1986).
21. See http://www.cdt.org/security/011030doj.
22. USA PATRIOT Act § 215, amending 50 U.S.C. §§ 1862 and 1863.
23. 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
24. USA PATRIOT Act § 215, amending 50 U.S.C. 1862(a)(1).
25. USA PATRIOT Act § 215, amending 50 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1).
26. See 18 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(2)(B), prior to its amendment by USA PATRIOT Act § 215.
27. FISA defines the term "United States persons" to include United States citizens and
lawful permanent residents. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(i).
28. USA PATRIOT Act § 215, amending 50 U.S.C. § 1862(a)(1).
29. See U.S.C. § 1862(a), prior to its amendment by USA PATRIOT Act § 215.
30. USA PATRIOT Act § 215, amending 50 U.S.C. § 1862.
31. USA PATRIOT Act § 215, amending 50 U.S.C. § 1863.
32. Pen registers record telephone numbers of outgoing calls. See 18 U.S.C. § 3127(3). Trap
and trace devices record telephone numbers from which incoming calls originate. See 18
U.S.C. § 3127(4).
33. USA PATRIOT Act § 216(c)(3) amending 18 U.S.C. § 3127(4) (emphasis added).
34. USA PATRIOT Act § 216(b) amending 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a).
35. In the case of orders for pen registers and trap and trace devices, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 demands only "a certification by the applicant that
the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." 18
U.S.C. §§ 3122(b)(2). See also Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). However,
providing telephone dialing information does not reveal the contents of telephone
communications.
36. USA PATRIOT Act §216 (b) amending 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a)(3)(A).
37. Internet and Data Interception Capabilities Developed by the FBI, Statement of Dr.
Donald M. Kerr, Assistant Director, Laboratory Division, July 24, 2000.
38. USA PATRIOT Act § 216(b) amending 18 U.S.C. § 3123(b)(3).
39. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B) (emphasis added).
40. USA PATRIOT Act § 218, amending 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)
(emphasis added).
41. 407 U.S. 297 (1972).
42. 407 U.S. at 313.
43. 407 U.S. at 320.
44. Id.
45. 407 U.S. at 317.
46. 407 U.S. at 309 (emphasis added).
47. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 915 (4th Cir. 1980) (emphasis added).
48. United States v. Johnson, 952 F.2d 565, 572 (9th Cir. 1992).
49. See supra Note 8 and the accompanying text.
50. The exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule that bars prosecutors from using
incriminating evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to prove guilt. See,
e.g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961).
51. USA PATRIOT Act § 203(a), (b), and (d). The information that may be shared must
involve either "foreign intelligence or counterintelligence," as that term is defined in the
National Security Act of 1947, at 50 U.S.C. § 401a, or "foreign intelligence information,"
as that term is defined in Section 203(a)(1), (b)(2)(C), and (d)(2).
52. USA PATRIOT Act § 203(a), amending Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
53. USA PATRIOT Act § 203(b), amending 18 U.S.C. § 2517(6).
54. USA PATRIOT Act §§ 203(d) and 905(a).
55. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence
Activities, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Final Report of the Senate
Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence
Activities, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1976).
56. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), non-citizens who have or are engaged
in "terrorist activities" or activities that threaten the national security are subject to
removal from the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(A) and (B).
57. Since 1983, the United States government has defined the term "terrorism," "for statistical
and analytical purposes," as the "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated
against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually
intended to influence an audience." See Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000, United States
Department of State, Introduction (April 2001).
58. USA PATRIOT Act § 411(a), amending 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V)(b).
59. USA PATRIOT Act § 411(a), amending 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(IV)(bb) and (cc),
(V)(bb) and (cc), and (VI)(cc) and (dd).
60. The Supreme Court has described guilt by association as "alien to the traditions of a free
society and the First Amendment itself." NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S.
886, 932 (1982). See also Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 186 (1972).
61. USA PATRIOT Act § 411(a) amended 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I) to include as a
"terrorist organization" any foreign organization so designated by the Secretary of State
under 8 U.S.C. § 1189, a provision that was introduced in the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996. As of October 5, 2001, 26 organizations had been designated
as foreign terrorist organizations under 8 U.S.C. § 1189. See 66 Federal Register 51088-
90 (Oct. 5, 2001). In order to qualify as a designated "foreign terrorist organization" under
8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(I), the Secretary of State must find that "(A) the organization
is a foreign organization; (B) the organization engages in terrorist activity; and (C) the
terrorist activity of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the
national security of the United States." See 8 U.S.C. § 1189(a)(1)(A)-(C).
In addition, USA PATRIOT Act § 411(a) amended 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) to
include as a "terrorist organization" any domestic or foreign organization so designated
by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General
under Section 411. On December 5, 2001, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Attorney General, designated 39 groups as Terrorist Exclusion List organizations under
this provision. See 66 Federal Register 63619-63620 (Dec. 7, 2001). In order to qualify
as a designated "terrorist organization" under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II), a "finding"
must be made that the organization engages in one or more of the "terrorist activities"
described in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(I)-(III). These activities consist of: (1)
"commit[ting] or incit[ing] to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause
death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;" (2) "prepar[ing] or plan[ning] a terrorist
activity;" and (3) "gather[ing] information on potential targets for terrorist activity." See 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(I)-(III).
62. USA PATRIOT Act § 411(a), amending 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III). In order to qualify
as an undesignated "terrorist organization" under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), "a
group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not," must engage in one or more
of the "terrorist activities" described in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(I)-(III). See supra Note
59.63. USA PATRIOT Act § 411(a), amending 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(IV)(cc), (V)(cc), and
(VI)(dd).
64. USA PATRIOT Act § 411(c)(3)(A) and (B).
65. USA PATRIOT Act § 412(a), adding 8 U.S.C. § 1226A(a).
66. USA PATRIOT Act § 412(a), adding 8 U.S.C. § 1226A(a)(3) and (5).
67. See, e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-22 (1968).
68. USA PATRIOT Act § 412(a), adding 8 U.S.C. § 1226A(a)(2).
69. USA PATRIOT Act § 412(a), adding 8 U.S.C. § 1226A(a)(7).
70. USA PATRIOT Act § 412(a), adding 8 U.S.C. § 1226A(b)(1) and (2)(A)(iii) and (iv).
71. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984).
72. USA PATRIOT Act § 412(a), adding 8 U.S.C. § 1226A(a)(2).
73. USA PATRIOT Act § 412(a), adding 8 U.S.C. § 1226A(a)(6).
74. USA PATRIOT Act § 412(a), adding 8 U.S.C. § 1226A(b)(1).
75. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2500 (2001).
76. While the USA PATRIOT Act does not explicitly authorize the use of secret evidence in
immigration proceedings, its provisions are certain to encourage its use. Since 1996, the
INA has explicitly provided for the use of such evidence in removal proceedings before
the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. In addition, the INS has
long taken the position that it is authorized to use secret evidence in bond proceedings.
See, e.g., Al Najjar v. Reno, 97 F.Supp.2d 1329 (S.D.Fl. 2000); Kiareldeen v. Reno, 71
F.Supp.2d 402 (D.N.J. 1999).
77. See Debs. v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919).
78. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
79. Linda Greenhouse, "In New York Visit, O'Connor Foresees Limits on Freedom," The New
York Times, Sept. 29, 2001, at B5. 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

[Warhorse]

If you have an attention span long enough to read this in it's entirity, you will have your question about 25 rights, answered. Oh the answer is yes. We have lost some very very serious rights.

The USA PATRIOT Act:
What's So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?
1
Nancy Chang, Senior Litigation Attorney
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
November 2001
Just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, a jittery Congress-exiled from its anthrax-contaminated offices and confronted with
warnings that more terrorist assaults were soon to come-capitulated to the Bush Administration's
demands for a new arsenal of anti-terrorism weapons. Over vigorous objections from civil liberties
organizations on both ends of the political spectrum, Congress overwhelmingly approved the
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act, better known by its acronym, the USA PATRIOT Act.
2
The House vote
was 356-to-66, and the Senate vote was 98-to-1. Along the way, the Republican House
leadership, in a raw display of force, jettisoned an anti-terrorism bill that the House Judiciary
Committee had unanimously approved and that would have addressed a number of civil liberties
concerns.
3
The hastily-drafted, complex, and far-reaching legislation spans 342 pages. Yet it was
passed with virtually no public hearing or debate, and it was accompanied by neither a
conference nor a committee report. On October 26, the Act was signed into law by a triumphant
President George W. Bush.
4
I. THE USA PATRIOT ACT CONFERS VAST AND UNCHECKED POWERS TO THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Although a number of its provisions are not controversial, the USA PATRIOT Act nevertheless
stands out as radical in its design. To an unprecedented degree, the Act sacrifices our political
freedoms in the name of national security and upsets the democratic values that define our nation
by consolidating vast new powers in the executive branch of government. The Act enhances the
executive's ability to conduct surveillance and gather intelligence, places an array of new tools at
the disposal of the prosecution, including new crimes, enhanced penalties, and longer statutes of
limitations, and grants the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the authority to detain
immigrants suspected of terrorism for lengthy, and in some cases indefinite, periods of time. And
at the same time that the Act inflates the powers of the executive, it insulates the exercise of
these powers from meaningful judicial and Congressional oversight.
Although a number of its provisions are not controversial, the USA PATRIOT Act nevertheless
stands out as radical in its design. To an unprecedented degree, the Act sacrifices our political
freedoms in the name of national security and upsets the democratic values that define our nation
by consolidating vast new powers in the executive branch of government. The Act enhances the
executive's ability to conduct surveillance and gather intelligence, places an array of new tools at
the disposal of the prosecution, including new crimes, enhanced penalties, and longer statutes of
limitations, and grants the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the authority to detain
immigrants suspected of terrorism for lengthy, and in some cases indefinite, periods of time. And
at the same time that the Act inflates the powers of the executive, it insulates the exercise of
these powers from meaningful judicial and Congressional oversight.
It remains to be seen how the executive will wield its new authority. However, if the two months
that have elapsed since September 11 serve as a guide, we should brace ourselves for a flagrant
disregard of the rule of law by those charged with its enforcement. Already, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) has admitted to detaining more than 1,100 immigrants, not one of whom has been
charged with committing a terrorist act and only a handful of whom are being held as materialwitnesses to the September 11 hijackings.
5
Many in this group appear to have been held for
extended time periods under an extraordinary interim regulation announced by Attorney General
John Ashcroft on September 17 and published in Federal Register on September 20.
6
This
regulation sets aside the strictures of due process by permitting the INS to detain aliens without
charge for 48 hours or an uncapped "additional reasonable period of time" in the event of an
"emergency or other extraordinary circumstance." Also, many in this group are being held without
bond under the pretext of unrelated criminal charges or minor immigration violations, in a modern-day
form of preventive detention. Chillingly, the Attorney General's response to the passage of
the USA PATRIOT Act was not a pledge to use his new powers responsibly and guard against
their abuse, but instead was a vow to step up his detention efforts. Conflating immigrant status
with terrorist status, he declared: "Let the terrorists among us be warned, if you overstay your
visas even by one day, we will arrest you."
7
Furthermore, the Administration has made no secret of its hope that the judiciary will accede to its
broad reading of the USA PATRIOT Act just as pliantly as Congress acceded to its broad
legislative agenda. In a letter sent to key Senators while Congress was considering this
legislation, Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant, of DOJ's Office of Legislative Affairs,
openly advocated for a suspension of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in the
government's investigation of foreign national security threats.
8
The Bryant letter brazenly
declares:
As Commander-in-Chief, the President must be able to use whatever means
necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States; this power, by implication,
includes the authority to collect information necessary to its effective exercise. . .
The government's interest has changed from merely conducting foreign
intelligence surveillance to counter intelligence operations by other nations, to
one of preventing terrorist attacks against American citizens and property within
the continental United States itself. The courts have observed that even the use
of deadly force is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if used in self-defense
or to protect others. . . Here, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the right
to self-defense is not that of an individual, but that of the nation and its citizens. .
. If the government's heightened interest in self-defense justifies the use of
deadly force, then it certainly would also justify warrantless searches.
9
II. SUSPENSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
The Administration's blatant power grab, coupled with the wide array of anti-terrorism tools that
the USA PATRIOT Act puts at its disposal, portends a wholesale suspension of civil liberties that
will reach far beyond those who are involved in terrorist activities. First, the Act places our First
Amendment rights to freedom of speech and political association in jeopardy by creating a broad
new crime of "domestic terrorism," and by denying entry to non-citizens on the basis of ideology.
Second, the Act will reduce our already lowered expectations of privacy under the Fourth
Amendment by granting the government enhanced surveillance powers. Third, non-citizens will
see a further erosion of their due process rights as they are placed in mandatory detention and
removed from the United States under the Act. Political activists who are critical of our
government or who maintain ties with international political movements, in addition to immigrants,
are likely to bear the brunt of these attacks on our civil liberties.
A. Silencing Political Dissent
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of "domestic terrorism" that broadly
extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" if they "appear
to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," and if they
"occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
10
Because this crime iscouched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement
agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations
based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing
the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature,
could be construed as acts that "appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government
by intimidation or coercion." Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts
of civil disobedience-even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent-could be
construed as "dangerous to human life" and in "violation of the criminal laws." Environmental
activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further
their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as "domestic terrorists."
In addition, political activists and the organizations with which they associate may unwittingly find
themselves the subject of unwanted government attention in the form of surveillance and other
intelligence-gathering operations. The manner in which the government implements the Act must
be carefully monitored to ascertain whether activists and organizations are being targeted
selectively for surveillance and prosecution based on their opposition to government policies. The
First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint-based discrimination.
11
Furthermore, Section 411 of the Act poses an ideological test for entry into the United States that
takes into consideration core political speech. Representatives of a political or social group
"whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined
undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities" can no longer gain
entry into the United States.
12
Entry is also barred to non-citizens who have used their "position of
prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity," if the Secretary of State
determines that their speech "undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist
activities."
13
B. Tolling the Death-Knell on Privacy
The USA PATRIOT Act
14
launches a three-pronged assault on our privacy. First, the Act grants
the executive branch unprecedented, and largely unchecked, surveillance powers, including the
enhanced ability to track email and Internet usage, conduct sneak-and-peek searches, obtain
sensitive personal records, monitor financial transactions, and conduct nationwide roving
wiretaps. Second, the Act permits law enforcement agencies to circumvent the Fourth
Amendment's requirement of probable cause when conducting wiretaps and searches that have,
as "a significant purpose," the gathering of foreign intelligence. Third, the Act allows for the
sharing of information between criminal and intelligence operations and thereby opens the door to
a resurgence of domestic spying by the Central Intelligence Agency.
1. Enhanced Surveillance Powers
By and large, Congress granted the Administration its longstanding wish list of enhanced
surveillance tools, coupled with the ability to use these tools with only minimal judicial and
Congressional oversight. In its rush to pass an anti-terrorism bill, Congress failed to exact in
exchange a showing that these highly intrusive new tools are actually needed to combat terrorism
and that the Administration can be trusted not to abuse them.
The recent decision in Kyllo v. United States
15
serves as a pointed reminder that once a Fourth
Amendment protection has been eroded, the resulting loss to our privacy is likely to be
permanent. In Kyllo, the Supreme Court concluded that the use of an advanced thermal detection
device that allowed the police to detect heat emanating from marijuana plants growing inside the
defendant's home constituted a "search" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and was
presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. The Court placed great weight on the fact that the
device was new, "not in general public use," and had been used to "explore details of a private
home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion."
16
Implicit in the
Court's holding is the principle that once a technology is in general public use and its capabilitiesare known, a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment may no longer
attach.
Several of the Act's enhanced surveillance tools, and the civil liberties concerns they raise, are
examined below.
a. Sneak and Peek Searches
Section 213 of the Act authorizes federal agents to conduct "sneak and peek searches," or covert
searches of a person's home or office that are conducted without notifying the person of the
execution of the search warrant until after the search has been completed. Section 213
authorizes delayed notice of the execution of a search warrant upon a showing of "reasonable
cause to believe that providing immediate notification… may have an adverse result."
17
Section
213 also authorizes the delay of notice of the execution of a warrant to conduct a seizure of items
where the court finds a "reasonable necessity" for the seizure.
Section 213 contravenes the "common law 'knock and announce' principle," which forms an
essential part of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness inquiry.
18
When notice of a search is
delayed, one is foreclosed from pointing out deficiencies in the warrant to the officer executing it,
and from monitoring whether the search is being conducted in accordance with the warrant. In
addition, Section 213, by authorizing delayed notice of the execution of a warrant to conduct a
seizure of items, contravenes Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
requires that, "The officer taking property under the warrant shall give to the person from whom or
from whose premises the property was taken a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property
taken or shall leave the copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken."
Under Section 213, notice may be delayed for a "reasonable period." Already, DOJ has staked
out its position that a "reasonable period" can be considerably longer than the seven days
authorized by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Villegas,
19
and by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Freitas.
20
DOJ states in its Field Guidance on New
Authorities (Redacted) Enacted in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation
21
that "[a]nalogy to other
statutes suggest [sic] that the period of delay could be substantial if circumstances warrant," and
cites in support of this proposition a case that found a 90-day delay in providing notice of a
wiretap warrant to constitute "a reasonable time." Notably, Section 213 is not limited to terrorism
investigations, but extends to all criminal investigations, and is not scheduled to expire.
b. Access to Records in International Investigations
Section 215
22
is one of several provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act that relaxes the
requirements, and extends the reach, of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(FISA).
23
Under Section 215, the Director of the FBI or a designee as low in rank as an Assistant
Special Agent in Charge may apply for a court order requiring the production of "any tangible
things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)" upon his written
statement that these items are being sought for an investigation "to protect against international
terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
24
A judge presented with an application under
Section 215 is required to enter an order if he "finds that the application meets the requirements
of this section."
25
Notably absent from Section 215 is the restriction in the FISA provision it amends that had
required the government to specify in its application for a court order that "there are specific and
articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power."
26
Now, under Section 215, the FBI may obtain sensitive
personal records by simply certifying that they are sought for an investigation "to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." The FBI need not suspect the person
whose records are being sought of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, the class of persons whose
records are obtainable under Section 215 is no longer limited to foreign powers and their agents,but may include United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, or "United States
persons" in the parlance of the FISA.
27
While Section 215 bars investigations of United States
persons "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution,"
it does nothing to bar investigations based on other activities that tie them, no matter how loosely,
to an international terrorism investigation.
28
The FISA provision that was amended by Section 215 had been limited in scope to "records" in
the possession of "a common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical storage facility, or
vehicle rental facility."
29
Section 215 extends beyond "records" to "tangible things" and is no
longer limited in terms of the entities from whom the production of tangible things can be
required.
30
A Congressional oversight provision will require the Attorney General to submit semi-annual
reports on its activities under Section 215.
31
Section 215 is scheduled to expire on
December 31, 2005.
c. Tracking Internet Usage
Under Section 216 of the Act, courts are required to order the installation of a pen register and a
trap and trace device
31
to track both telephone and Internet "dialing, routing, addressing and
signaling information"
32
anywhere within the United States when a government attorney has
certified that the information to be obtained is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."
33
Section 216 states that orders issued under its authority cannot be permit the tracking of the
"contents of any wire or electronic communications." However, in the case of email messages
and Internet usage, the Act does not address the complex question of where the line should be
drawn between "dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information" and "content." Unlike
telephone communications, where the provision of dialing information does not run the risk of
revealing content,
35
email messages move together in packets that include both address and
content information. Also, the question of whether a list of web sites and web pages that have
been visited constitutes "dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information" or "content" has
yet to be resolved.
By providing no guidance on this question, Section 216 gives the government wide latitude to
decide what constitutes "content." Of special concern is the fact that Section 216 authorizes the
government to install its new Carnivore or DCS1000 system, a formidable tracking device that is
capable of intercepting all forms of Internet activity, including email messages, web page activity,
and Internet telephone communications.
36
Once installed on an Internet Service Provider (ISP),
Carnivore devours all of the communications flowing through the ISP's network-not just those of
the target of surveillance but those of all users-and not just tracking information but content as
well. The FBI claims that through the use of filters, Carnivore "limits the messages viewable by
human eyes to those which are strictly included within the court order."
37
However, neither the
accuracy of Carnivore's filtering system, nor the infallibility of its human programers, has been
demonstrated. While Section 216 requires the government to maintain a record when it utilizes
Carnivore, this record need not be provided to the court until 30 days after the termination of the
order, including any extensions of time.
38
Section 216 is not scheduled to expire.
2. Allowing Law Enforcement Agencies to Evade the Fourth Amendment's Probable
Cause Requirement
Perhaps the most radical provision of the USA PATRIOT Act is Section 218, which amends
FISA's wiretap and physical search provisions. Under FISA, court orders permitting the executive
to conduct surreptitious foreign intelligence wiretaps and physical searches may be obtained
without the showing of probable cause required for wiretaps and physical searches in criminal
investigations. Until the enactment of the Act, orders issued under FISA's lax standards were
restricted to situations where the gathering of foreign intelligence information was "the purpose"
of the surveillance.
39
Under Section 218, however, orders may be issued under FISA's lax standards where the
primary purpose of the surveillance is criminal investigation, and the gathering of foreignintelligence information constitutes only "a significant purpose"of the surveillance.
40
As a result,
Section 218 allows law enforcement agencies conducting a criminal investigation to circumvent
the Fourth Amendment whenever they are able to claim that the gathering of foreign intelligence
constitutes "a significant purpose." In doing so, Section 218 gives the FBI a green light to resume
domestic spying on government "enemies"-a program that reached an ugly apex under J. Edgar
Hoover's directorship.
In the seminal case of United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (Keith),
41
the Supreme Court rejected President Richard Nixon's ambitious bid for the
unchecked executive power to conduct warrantless wiretaps when investigating national security
threats posed by domestic groups with no foreign ties. The Court recognized that national
security cases reflect "a convergence of First and Fourth Amendment values not present in cases
of 'ordinary' crime."
42
With respect to the First Amendment, the Court wisely observed that
"[o]fficial surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence
gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech" because of "the
inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept… and the temptation to utilize such
surveillances to oversee political dissent."
43
With respect to the Fourth Amendment, the Court acknowledged the constitutional basis for the
President's domestic security role, but refused to exempt the President from the Fourth
Amendment's warrant requirement.
44
The Court explained that the oversight function assumed by
the judiciary in its review of applications for warrants "accords with our basic constitutional
doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through a separation of powers and
division of functions among the different branches and levels of Government."
45
Notably, the Keith Court declined to examine "the scope of the President's surveillance power
with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."
46
To fill the vacuum
left in the wake of the Keith decision, in 1978 Congress enacted FISA, which is premised on the
assumption that Fourth Amendment safeguards are not as critical in foreign intelligence
investigations as they are in criminal investigations. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on FISA's
constitutionality. However, both the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have cautioned that applying FISA's
lax standards to criminal investigations raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns. In United
States v. Truong Dinh Hung, the Fourth Circuit held that "the executive should be excused from
securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence
reasons," because "once surveillance becomes primarily a criminal investigation, the courts are
entirely competent to make the usual probable cause determination, and because, importantly,
individual privacy interests come to the fore and government foreign policy concerns recede when
the government is primarily attempting to form the basis for a criminal prosecution."
47
In a similar
vein, the Ninth Circuit held in United States v. Johnson that "the investigation of criminal activity
cannot be the primary purpose of [FISA] surveillance" and that "[FISA] is not to be used as an
end-run around the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of warrantless searches."
48
The constitutionality of Section 218 is in considerable doubt. The extremist position staked out by
DOJ in the Bryant Letter, which argues that "f the government's heightened interest in self-defense
justifies the use of deadly force, then it certainly would also justify warrantless searches,"
would undermine the separation of powers doctrine.
49
Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this
matter, the government will find itself in a quandary each time it seeks to prosecute a criminal
defendant based on evidence that, although properly obtained under the lesser showing required
by Section 218, does not meet the probable cause showing required by the Fourth Amendment.
Should the government decide to base prosecutions on such evidence, it will run the risk that the
evidence will be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.
50
Section 218 is
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005.

[Warhorse]

Try this for starters-
Freedoms Lost Under G.W. Bush
by Chuck Baldwin

Anyone who dares to oppose or even question Bush must be regarded as enemies of America or even as enemies of God.
February 1, 2005--Supporters and apologists for President G.W. Bush will often assail my assertion that the Bush administration has done more to dismantle constitutional protections of our liberties than any president in modern memory. It seems that these people believe that until federal Storm Troopers knock down the doors of their homes and drag them off to the gulags, they have lost no freedoms. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If history is any teacher, it instructs us in the incremental process that elitists use to implement their totalitarian agenda. The first step is to use an incessant, highly orchestrated propaganda. For all practical purposes, the major media in the United States is providing that propaganda. At the national level, there is hardly any investigative journalism going on. Instead, the national press corps has become little more than lazy lackeys for the White House.

The second step is to lay the foundation for totalitarianism by passing legislation that may later be used against the citizenry. And that is exactly what the Bush administration has very successfully accomplished. It very adroitly succeeded where the Clinton administration failed.

For example, most conservatives would be surprised to learn that the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security was the brainchild of one William Jefferson Clinton. However, a recalcitrant Republican Congress denied Clinton the opportunity to implement these plans. Of course, with the Republican, G.W. Bush, serving as President, that same Republican Congress was all too eager to pass these bills into law.
Whether or not individual Americans have been personally subjected to tyranny as a result of lost freedoms doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms.

The third step is to demonize and marginalize anyone and everyone who opposes the government's plans and ambitions. Such opponents are characterized as "unpatriotic," "obstructionist," "uncompassionate," or even "ungodly." Once again, the Bush minions have very skillfully done just that. Anyone who dares to oppose or even question Bush must be regarded as enemies of America or even as enemies of God.

Of course, the last step is to begin using the power and force of government to physically silence or remove those who are determined to require such treatment. And, as Germany's National Socialists proved, by the time this happens, there is no one around who is capable of coming to the assistance of such people.

For those who are willing to objectively analyze Bush's actions and policies, the truth is clearly seen: this President has systematically put in place laws, policies, and bureaucracies that can, are, and will continue to strip the American citizenry of the constitutional protections of their liberties.

Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have already expunged (as reported by the Associated Press):

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
That good citizens are compliant and unconcerned regarding G.W. Bush's propensity to trample constitutional freedoms bespeaks a great ignorance or a great apathy, or both.

These rights have already been lost! Whether individual Americans have been personally subjected to the resultant tyranny or not doesn't change the fact that they have already lost these freedoms! This fact, alone, should be enough for any studious lover-of-liberty to be outraged.

That good citizens are compliant and unconcerned regarding G.W. Bush's propensity to trample constitutional freedoms bespeaks a great ignorance or a great apathy, or both.
© 2005 Chuck Baldwin. This article was originally circulated at chuckbaldwinlive.com and is republished in the Chronicle with permission of the author. The author, a minister who holds two doctorates of divinity, hosts a radio program called "Chuck Baldwin Live,' whose broadcast area includes the Florida Panhandle and Southern Alabama. The program is described on its website as "conservative, Christian, pro-life, pro-family, and patriotic. We support constitutional government and the Bill of Rights. We hold fast to the principles and values expressed by the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence." The author was the Constitution Party's 2004 vice-presidential candidate on a ticket headed by Michael Peroutka of Millersville, Md., a graduate of Loyola College in Maryland and the University of Baltimore School of Law.

Chuck Baldwin may be reached at [e-mail], or visit his website at chuckbaldwinlive.com.

Copyright © 2005 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on February 1, 2005.

[Razorbucks]

extelecom: Is that one of those joke sites?

No, it's one of those blind liberal sites. LOLROTF.

[extelecom]

Is that one of those joke sites? <G>

[Razorbucks]

Pelosi named 4th 'hottest' on capital hill.

http://thehill.com/cover-stories/the-50-most-beautiful-people-on-capitol-hill---top-10-2007-07-24.ht....

ROTFLMAO! Who rigged this story?



Someone needs to see their optometrist.

[Razorbucks]

The liberal climate nazis strike again

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

If you don't agree with liberals, they'll destroy you. I wonder if they have CO2 gas chambers?

I wonder why they haven't addressed the global warming issue on Mars and the moon? Maybe it would hurt their push for more taxes on car and cow emissions?

[Razorbucks]

Obama and kindergarten explicit sex education

Why does Obama believe that 4-5 year olds need to be taught about sex? Will the democrats condone passing out condoms and sex toys to kindergartners?

http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=598928 (Video)
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3395047 (Video)
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/07/obama_supports_sex_ed_for_kindergartners/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868032/posts

"It's the right thing to do"

Why do democrats stand toe-to-toe with an institution, planned parenthood, that makes money from murdering children?

Personally, I don't think the morally bankrupt democratic party and planned parenthood needs to be pushing their view of sex and death values on our children.

[Razorbucks]

Bill Clinton and his pardons

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_libby

>>
President Clinton tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush's decision to commute Libby's 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case.
>>

Of course, it is different, a democrat pardoned fugitives and 140 criminals while a republican pardoned Scooter Libby.

That's the only difference folks, a democrat can pardon anyone but a Republican can't!

Just remember, also, half of Republicans should resign with Mark Foley and his inappropriate comments but democrats should be able to reelect Gerry Studds, a gay sex pedophilia predator SEVEN times after he was caught!

The Democrats should make anyone and everyone vomit with their egotism, their "holier than thou" attitude, and the idea that they are the culture of prosperity and goodness!

[Razorbucks]

Chunga, Excellent questions.

Those are definitely deserving of being added to the iBox!

LOL!

[chunga1]

Top Ten Questions for Democrat Presidential Candidates
By J.B. Williams, Monday, July 2, 2007

1. If we can’t drill, can’t refine, can’t mine, can’t build nuclear power plants and can’t burn fossil fuels, how can we become “energy independent”? I mean besides returning America to the Stone Age.
2. If we start burning our food to avoid upsetting a few caribou, what will we eat next and how much will it cost compared to a gallon of ethanol?
3. Since our federal government has never failed to increase their original projected budget, or outspend that budget no matter how many times it’s been increased, why should we believe that you are going to lower the cost of health care if we let you manage that?
4. Aren’t you the folks who came up with the HMO?
5. If Cheryl Crow believes in one square of tissue per wipe, does she believe in one mini-pad per period and isn’t she on your team?
6. If America has already lost in Iraq, who won and when will we face the victor again?
7. If the people are so stupid that they need you to take care of their most fundamental needs, how do you feel about being elected by the dumbest people in America?
8. If illegal immigration was the key to America’s multi-cultural success, was legal immigration a blot on that record?
9. If Hillary Clinton can’t make her husband behave like a decent human being, why should we believe that she has the backbone to make Iran, North Korea, Syria, China or Russia behave?
10. Can anyone run for president now, or does affirmative action limit it to just empty suits from Illinois with no resume’ who have a Muslim sounding name?

[Razorbucks]

Britain's version of Hillary Care

Not so very NICE for Lucentis

If this blog is correct Britain's National Institute of Health Care Excellence (NICE) should be forced to change its acronym to MEAN.

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/search/label/UK

Wednesday, June 13, 2007
NHS TO BRITS: GO BLIND IN ONE EYE BEFORE WE GIVE YOU ANTI-BLINDNESS DRUG
AND THE BRITS ARE RIGHTLY OUTRAGED AT THE "National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence" ["NICE"]:


BBC:
Steve Winyard, of the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), said he was "outraged" by the guidance.

"It ignores the overwhelming body of evidence that these new treatments are cost-effective and have the potential to halve the number of people going blind each year," he said.

"It is simply unacceptable that only a small minority of patients within England and Wales will have access to these ground-breaking drugs.

"NICE must re-consider and show that it makes its decisions based on cost-effectiveness rather than simply cost containment."

Tom Bremridge, chief executive of the Macular Disease Society, said: "Limiting the treatment options to 20% of patients who would benefit is unjustifiable, and allowing one eye to go blind before treating the second eye is cruel and totally unacceptable."
TIMES UK:
Thousands of people face severe loss of sight after a decision by the health watchdog to deny two leading treatments to NHS patients.


The drugs Lucentis and Macugen have been shown to be the most effective means of halting the onset of wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the only treatable form of the most common cause of blindness in Britain.

The condition affects about 250,000 people and claims 26,000 new sufferers each year. It damages the central part of the retina called the macula and leaves one in ten sufferers blind.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has been under intense pressure to approve the drugs. Its draft guidance recommends that Macugen should not be used at all on the NHS in England and Wales, while Lucentis is recommended only for a small group of patients who have already gone blind in one eye and whose disease is progressing in their second.

UK GUARDIAN:
The Royal College of Ophthalmologists said that the draft ruling, from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), was "completely unacceptable". It meant that only patients already in effect blind in one eye because of the condition wet age-related macular degeneration would be able to get the newest and most effective drug, Lucentis.

Only 20% of those people whom the drug could help, those with the fastest progressing form of the disease, would get it at all via the NHS. Yet, doctors warned, half of the remainder of patients would reach the same stage of the condition within a year. Critics were also unhappy that a second drug, Macugen, was ruled out for use in the NHS.

The Royal National Institute for the Blind accused Nice of allowing 20,000 people in the UK, the number diagnosed with the condition each year, to go blind.
THIS PROVES - ONCE AGAIN - THAT SO-CALLED "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS AND ADMINISTERED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS A DISASTER EVERYWHERE.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT GETS TO DECIDE WHAT'S COST EFFECTIVE FOR EVERYONE.


IT IS INSANE TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT HERE IN THE USA.

YET THAT'S WHAT THE DEMS WANT TO DO. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

DON'T FALL FOR IT.
Labels: 2008 election, Democrats, HILLARYCARE, NHS, SOCIALISM, UK

CREDIT: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20833536


How long does it take for a Democrat to understand that socialism and universal healthcare does not work? When will lazy liberals quit preaching that the gov't will take care of everything?

[Razorbucks]

Proof that liberal Stalinists hate free speech.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html
What do they not understand about supply and demand?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485
Why are they such hypocrites if they only want to control the airwaves? What about media bias? This just shows how unAmerican and intolerant the extreme left is!

The democrats are an intolerant bunch! They want a free pass on everything! Conventions, debates, and freedom from talk radio!

[Razorbucks]

The wrath of 2007: America's great drought
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2643033.ece

They seem to have forgotten the flooding in the Ohio Valley, MidWest, and areas of the South.

I guess the balanced view doesn't give credence to liberal global warming? Wasn't it just a few years ago that LA had it's wettest season on record? LOLROTF!

http://en.ce.cn/National/Local/200706/10/t20070610_11676787.shtml

[Razorbucks]

Libs trying to bury scientific studies on Capital Punishment?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence_4;_ylt=AiZsLw0mSaU9sYaCymxe....

I guess liberals are wrong yet again? This is what happens when someone is led by a bleating heart. They say abstinence is not natural because suppression is "unnatural", and then scream from hilltops that medical abortion is the answer! Sucking baby brains with a vacuum in a partial-birth abortion is natural?

[Razorbucks]

Obama says 10000 people died in storm in Kansas

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0K1FG2&show_article=1

The Hollywood liberal drama queen gets confused in his appeal for surrender in Iraq against the terrorists.

[TruckerChris]

Been reading this baord for a few weeks now. Couple of points.

1. Did anyone hear about the recent stoning of a 13 year girl in Iraq by her parents? She was stoned because she dared to date or go with someone from a different sect as her parents.

2. How would a woman as president be looked at by the Muslim wolrd? Not the US or Europe, but Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, China and Russia. Interesting their take on women and their roles in society. Very different from ours.

3. Prove to me that I or my fellow billions of fellow humans are responsible for the (so called) warming that is taking place. Was it not just as recent as the 60's and 70's that we believed we were beginning a cooling off period and possibly starting a new ice age? Unless I believe that I am more powerful than God or that there is no God, then and only then could I believe that we can influence our surroundings. And yes, I bring God into this, because every civilization that has ever existed has believed that there is a force that is greated than them at work in life.

OK, enough for now. I look forward to future debates with those that see me one who is on the Right side of life.
CJV

[sniperflea]

Arrogance and ignorance are a liberals friend. No answers and no solutions to speak of. Why have substance when you can have wind?

[Razorbucks]

I wouldn't even think about voting for Ron Paul

with the substance his minions bring to the table!

[Razorbucks]

So many, and the brilliant chef

can't post one link! All I wanted was ONE link. Yes, you have a mental problem! ENOUGH! Take your BS elsewhere! This is a board for substance and ideas, of which, you have failed and have none! No wonder you condone nude protests "because a baby is born nude"! An infant has a more mature mind than you!

[IxCimi]

There are far too many. I am sorry your skills of investigation are so incomplete.

[Razorbucks]

Show us what facts I'm not reviewing!

Provide any link to a message that you have authored with facts and substance! Any link, chef!

Have you seen the iBox?

[IxCimi]

Apparently, you don't really pay attention all that well then...

You seek to promote your personal agenda. Not review the facts.

[Razorbucks]

Another one-lined childish retort and you still

can't post any link to a post you have made with substance. Answers require substance, and you've proven you're incapable of answers because you have no substance. Did you notice how my last post had substance and links? Something you're unfamiliar with?

This board is for substance, and you're starting to spam.

[IxCimi]

No, you refuse to address them adequately. Somehow, my answers seem "beneath " you...

Meanwhile, your world erodes daily. You don't agree, I'm sure.

But, you will.

[Razorbucks]

I was born naked, IxCimi, so that makes

nude protests okay? I also got milk from my mom's breasts when I was a baby, so I should continue? Should I also sleep in a crib and cry all night? Did you honestly think that was a point? As a chef, do you still prepare Gerber baby food?

On http://www.zombietime.com , they have a protest at memorial oak grove, read the story! These idiots want to do nothing but be exhibitionists, which is a mental disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibitionism

They do it for no cause, just for attention! These moonbats have smoked too much pot, they'll never grow up!

You use no common sense in your reasoning. But, I believe everyone on this board expects no answers from you.

I have asked you repeatedly to post any answers that you have and all you do is offer excuses or say something ignorant.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19308367

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19276741

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19274078

And on and on and on... You talk about substance but can't show it. I've never heard of such inane behavior.

[IxCimi]

This is your board and those are your rules.

Of course I comply.

However, I have provided soooo many answers elsewhere.

I will not repeat them here.

You have simply missed, denied, or negated them out of hand.

There is no effort on your part to make any movement to suggest a serious level of conversation.

You and the goon squads (the swarm mind) just proffer the same old tripe complaints over and over again, using the very same words in the very same ways. There is nothing original, or representative of independent thought in that.

You are like kids who believe you are "unique" when you are all following the same fad.

Many of you are extremists going after extremist of another persuasion and holding that up as an example of your sanity.

That just doesn't work.

You may as well be the totalitarian hierarchy of the Soviet Union using the "Three Stooges" as examples of American cultural attributes.



You've also got a HUGE prudish streak.

Get over it...

My goodness.

You were born naked. Only people who've had conflicted issues with such matters or personally battle with predilections they are ashamed of are tormented by such trifles.

It takes on a magnified proportion in their stilted lives.

That's the source of all our perversion in this country.

Puritanism is harmful to human life.

[Razorbucks]

Familiarize yourself with the ways of liberal extremism.

All liberal extremists use the same divisive poison.

Just analyze this statement by Garafolo, a person who cohosted lib radio!

"Our country is founded on a sham(1). Our forefathers were slave-owning rich(2) white(3) guys(4) who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, 'Oh my God(5), you're insulting me.(6)' That you can have a gay parade(7) on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women(8) on a float cheering, 'We're here, we're queer!' - that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag(9). I get choked up with pride."
-Garafolo, co-host on Air America, 1998

(1) Attacking those who paid the price for freedom.
(2) Class warfare
(3) Racial warfare
(4) Sex warfare
(5) Invoking a power that you despise in a denigratory way
(6) Playing the victim
(7) Shoving sexual orientation in people's faces
(8) Excuses to parade around nude (exhibitionism)
(9) Despising the symbol of freedom.


http://www.zombietime.com
View the hall of shame

[Razorbucks]

In the "doomsday" global warming "debate",

(1) why is it acceptable to liberals that a "Climatological Expert" (with a degree in theology) on The Weather Channel can go McCarthy on anyone that disagrees with her drama should have their certifications pulled?

“If a meteorologist has an AMS [American Meteorological
Society] Seal of Approval which is used to confer legitimacy to
TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to
truly educate themselves on the science of global warming . . . . If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise . . . It’s not a political statement . . . it’s just an incorrect statement.”


As if this "expert" can unequivocally declare the cause of "global warming" as she can declare which way a hurricane rotates, which can be seen! Absurd! It looks as though someone needs to go back to school to learn how compare like-things.

http://www.greg-strange.com/Weather_Channel_Heidi_Cullen.html
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=8&num=11117

Here she is, in all of her glory:
http://climate.weather.com/onair.html

Her show seems to be more about Hollywood drama. When I watch another series, "Storm Stories" on The Weather Channel, I've noticed some of the stories have scenes where they blur or shake the camera to cause more of an emotional effect - a drama for their story. Then, the wilder the story, the better. It's all about entertainment and drama, not the facts. Is it The Weather Channel or The Hollywood Channel?

On with the questions --

(2) Are the Martian vehicles the cause of global warming on Mars? Are the Martians using too much toilet paper (Sheryl Crow)? Too many Martian animals flatulating (Gore)?

Look at how absurd! Look at the drama! Toilet Paper? Cow Flatulence? And, lastly, driving off-road vehicles in Africa all cause global warming! We better get in our pods! I wonder if the Martians have an Al Gore of their own that in pure emotion announces the destruction of Mars as he travels in his jet around the globe, creating more Carbon Dioxide.

(3) Why do global alarmists never deal with solar cycles or talk about the sun?

(4) What happened to the global cooling dramatists in the 1970s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

(5) Is something only open to discussion if you disagree with the topic? Is the thought police coming soon?

I didn't even deal much with Al Gore and his hysterical story about the coming Armageddon! 9 more years until world destruction!

[Razorbucks]

Answers make them angry.

They trivialize everything. Life should be trivialized at every point it seems to them! It's great when people trivialize their gender! They want to be a he, she, shemale, heshe! The family is now a trivial subject. Ralph wants to marry Bob and be known as a normal couple.

Order is very finite and simple. That's why liberals are chaotic, unstable, and can't seem to find any answers in their fantasy world of hysteria, because they trivialize the obvious.

I think I know the culprit. It's either a mental disorder, or the following:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ORAMNO0&show_article=1

I've posted this link many times to help inform the leftists.

[sniperflea]

No answers....just bluster.

[Razorbucks]

Swarm think! What a joke!

Do you have a solution or no? An answer or no? Why couldn't you liberals support action against the enemy? Was it political advantage that made your wafflers renege on their statements?

I have posted plenty of links in the iBox in an orderly fashion. They offer historical quotes, pictures, and many facts that refute the democrat excuses and whine.

Try not to complicate things that are not complicated! Not everything in life should be trivialized. And, try to remain civil! I won't tolerate vulgarity and moonbats. TIA

[IxCimi]

You speak in swarm think.

Defeat? Chaos? That's what Iraq is.

A defeated, chaotic mad house effort run by an idiot who's life long incompetent management style has put off all, but the most RIDICULOUS of loyalists.

There is a day coming VERY soon when you will gnash your teeth and wail at the truth which will destroy your entire set of specious, non-premises beyond redemption.

I am entirely pleased to say it come by more swiftly with each passing day now.

If you delete this post which I will most CERTAINLY USE as evidence against your derelict notions in days to come, it will be because you can not stand the notion of being just as defeated as your pathetic ideas.

Do as you like. I have archived it for future use...

[rigmedic]

Well - all the employees are happy now - they dont have to go to work so they can hang out, carry a beat or two in their drum circles and collect UNEMPLOYMENT - you know - the thing us "working" people OWE all those lazy dumb***s that WONT!

Same with welfare - they want all the people that work and have money to pay for it - so they can give it to people like illegal aliens (Nancy Pelosi Talibani)who dont pay a dime in taxes to begin with so they can enjoy "our" way of life?

[Razorbucks]

Liberal, if you're going to spam, curse, whine, and rant,

stay on the unregulated political boards where you can spew your foolish tripe, and digress. If you have answers, fine, post them, and the answers will be on-the-record.

Your personal attack is very telling of your hatred. This board is formulated for answers. Evidently, you don't have the capacity to critically think?

I'm not tolerating the degenerative hate that you spewed in your last post.

If you can't see the plentiful questions in the iBox, get some glasses.

[Razorbucks]

Answer a few questions to prove your point.

Solutions require critical thinking, and I doubt liberals have the mind for it with their disease, hence my conclusion.

http://www.zombietime.com

[fuagf]

I'll bet you with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that you will not find in any book
of diseases, medical, psychological journal or even in any philosophical
work any basis for your comment that "liberalism is a mental disease."

How can you in any sense at all state that a social
attitude or more could be defined as a health problem?

Just where did you get that chip on your shoulder?

[Razorbucks]

And yet again, the liberals bring no answers

nor solutions. Calm Discussion must be evil, no?

[Razorbucks]

Hillary says sucking out baby brains in the birth canal

is a constitutional right. Why does Hillary forget about the baby's rights as it is halfway out of the birth canal? I wonder how these morally bankrupt individuals on the democrat side can function. It's nothing worse than Nazi tactics of death-love. Murdering those that can't defend themselves!

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1451

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

The words of the mighty philanthropist, "mother" Teresa.


Compare this to the degenerates in philanthropy disguise, known as liberals, who salivate at abortion on demand and shirk any responsibility while preaching entitlements and excuses.

[Razorbucks]

Libs no longer can deem it their right to slaughter babies halfway through the birth canal by sucking their brains out with a vaccuum.

It's a good day for the free world.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion_28

There is no freedom from responsibility!

[ONEBGG]

Good idea for a board, I'll be a regular reader now to.

[SkeBallLarry]

Welcome, Gary .... I just Lurk, but read everyday ....

[ONEBGG]

Nice board, I just bookmarked it.

[chunga1]

what a kidder lol

[Razorbucks]

Check out this liberal's insightful answer:

HA HA HA!

April Fools...

[chunga1]

he will never answer, he can't...........

[gp100357]

Oh, my, arent you the cute one!