She has a new look lately... but i like Michelle Malkin more... :-)
Posted on 01/05/2006 12:16:20 AM PST by ChristianDefender
Maybe Boxer got Osama's number... thy're textmates.. sarc..
Good Article!
Great article from a brilliant mind but what NO PICTURES???
of Anne?
Better not mean Boxer
Oh HELL NO. Thanks for saving me from a GROTESQUE error! Some pictures of the Divine Ms C please!!!!
Indeed.
She has a new look lately... but i like Michelle Malkin more... :-)
lol
Bush used it to monitor people who were communicating with KNOWN TERRORISTS overseas .. and suddenly the left wants it stopped? You have John Dean, the leader of the DNC telling Americans we are going to lose a war (that we are winning). You have the leader of the Dem. minority Reid, boasting that the left has killed the Patriot Act.
We see the left systematically trying to weaken this nation's ability to fight terrorists and stoping another 9/11. Dems are trying to make losing some civil rights .. comparable .. to having thousands of americans slaughtered by terrorists. Beleive me, when the US is viciously attacked with another 9/11 or worse, Americans will blame the Dems for trying undermine our ability to protect ourselves
So long as Dems continue to promote the theory that Americans deserved what they got on 9/11 .. they will never convince anyone ..that they are the party that can be trusted when it comes to the security of Americans.
It is a subtle point which is why the Hysteric Left has so much trouble grasping it. This is one of those murky gray areas that the pat assertions and comfortable assumptions about "Constitutional Rights" does NOT address. At what point do you quit being a member of our society and become and ENEMY of it? That is one of the things in a post 9-11 world we are going to have to figure out as a society. We have competing views, I do NOT think the political Lefts view is one that will win much favor with the voters.
I'm sure we can all agree that our government officials in their entirety should follow the existing laws, and not violate the fourth amendment rights of Americans. If the amendment is flawed, there is no reason the threshold needed to repeal the amendment wouldn't be met through the proper methods our forefathers laid out for us.
Mr. Tice is stating unconstitutional acts have been committed by our government officials.
The Justice Department is stating there were presidential powers granted by Congress in 2001 that supercedes this:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Whistleblower Protection Act protects this guy in order for him to testify. Without good laws like that, illegal acts like this might go by without notice. I can't see how he would take this risk, without having good hard evidence showing how Americans' Constitutional rights were violated, combined with the fact that nothing, at no time, has given government officials the right to violate our fourth amendment rights. There is even a secret court that was created in order to get important warrants, very quickly, which several presidents have used in the past, and chose not to bypass, due to their lack of not being denied warrants, time and time again, because of their greater integrity.
This is going to be a long war. The American people are very, very, very well aware of the will of these terrorists to harm us. But are Americans scared enough to repeal the fourth amendment ? If so, they can simply change the amendment. There have been many, many bad crimes over the years, but none of them have been bad enough to scare us in to give up our fourth amendment rights. Our forefathers said those were inherent rights, meaning they cannot be taken away, like privileges can. It's not our property if the government can invade it without following the fourth amendment, and it being our property is what makes us Kings, the way our forefathers wanted us to be. Everything comes back to property. When we start giving up our property rights, like this, and the recent eminent domain cases, then we take a step towards being ruled by a King, where he owns our property, and can do with it however he pleases. Why must history repeat itself, when we have been gifted with the education required in order for us to share in the responsibility of defending our liberty ?
If we're really scared enough to give up these rights, because terrorism is worse than all other crimes, then I suggest we check ourselves. Isn't child molesting bad ? Rape ? Murdering ? If so, then aren't THOSE crimes bad enough to scare us in to giving up our fourth amendment rights ? Why shouldn't the President be allowed to spy on anyone talking to any child molester, rapist, or murderer, without getting a warrant then too ? It doesn't make sense why he would do that, when he could simply make a call, and say "Hey this is a guy talking to a bad guy", and if the court agreed, they would simply say "Ok, here's the warrant". That's the way it's been. We catch criminals like that all the time. If that system is truly flawed, then maybe it is time to change the system, through the proper methods. But if we agree that we should no longer follow the Constitution at all, then we can say the methods in the Constitution are wrong, because we've achieved the fear threshold our forefathers never predicted. Or they did predict it, which is why they laid out these methods.
What do you think ? Follow existing law, or break the laws that have grown stagnant soley in your and your close friends' opinions ?
I'd say that moment comes when you swear submission to this mission!
Sura 9:5 of the “Koran,” “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”
Kinda automatically makes them an enemy of all mankind! This "IS" their commandment! They have no choice in the matter! They are sworn to murder!
Time to put allah on the assheap of history!
ABC CBS NBC CNN its all the SAME, Propaganda.
Might as well call them all AmeriJazerra.
Show them how much Gravitas Hugh Bris has. Vote with your remote! Shut down the Alphabet channels.
He's Got A Plan
Zippo Hero
She needs to be taken care of.
Amen!
Molo aka AfghaniVillager zotted again.
I agree...
You just driving by?
In reading this, I see that there are cases of reasonable search and seizure. I also see that when Warrants are issued there are certain criteria to be met before issuance. I think you erroneously believe that every search and/or seizure must be accompianied by a warrant, but since I am not a lawyer I might be wrong. Perhaps someone can help me out.
When property is sized by emminent domain is a Civil Warrant issued to sieze that property and what does Probable Cause have to do with that? If terrorists (foreign and domestic) are monitored with no intention of arresting them is being made, but rather to Promote the General Welfare, then what does the issuance of warrants have to do with that? Can someone with legal expertise help me out?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.