Replies

"...good ol boy JA is busy touring the country promoting the obscenity k/a "the patriot act", therefore, he's too busy promoting laws against us law abiding citizens to worry about the clinton slimes and their comrades in arms."

He's really been a major disappointment in office, hasn't he?! SHEEEEESH...he's a gutless patrician ruler, not a prosecutor, and then this War on Terror gave him the perfect excuse to ignore the Tyranny committed by the Clinton Administration!! But Justice against Clinton should take a backseat to no other priority, IMHO.

"The Future danger of Section 802, clauses 5A & B (i) & (ii) while conjuctive to the rest of the clause(s) is not to be under-estimated relative to the power it gives the bad guys/girls."

What exactly is that, my FRiend? Do you have a link to thread(s) that explain the danger?

"For some reason(s), the clintons remain untouchable and that is also an obscenity."

As much as I hate to admit it, I think there's a little "Honor Amongst Thieves" between the RINOs and the RATS...I respect Dubyuh and all, but he's timid as all git out when it comes to takin' on the RATS vis a vis the Clinton corruption and in cutting domestic spending. ForeignPolicy-wise, I think Bush's done an excellent job, but he's been a MAJOR disappointment domestically, even taking into account his success with the tax cuts.

FReegards...MUD

"As much as I hate to admit it, I think there's a little "Honor Amongst Thieves" between the RINOs and the RATS...I respect Dubyuh and all, but he's timid as all git out when it comes to takin' on the RATS vis a vis the Clinton corruption and in cutting domestic spending. ForeignPolicy-wise, I think Bush's done an excellent job, but he's been a MAJOR disappointment domestically, even taking into account his success with the tax cuts."

Here's to the "pretend" conservatives in the small r republican party and their weakness in confronting the Dems's illegal mis-use of the filibuster:

For Shame, For Shame

For Shame, for shame,
you tarnish the Republican name,
you’re such an inept crew,
nothing more than, Me Too

Why don’t you show some balls,
fight their filibuster calls,
you talk a good fight,
you’re nothing more than,
democrat light

You nominate people
to sit on the court,
when the going gets rough, you resort
to a whine and woe is us
refusing to show some guts

Oh, you threaten action very well,
still, your nominees are put through Hell
hung out to be vilified,
by people who have no substance,
no style

So, make up your minds
you incompetent clowns,
show us that your principles shine,
don’t let them beat you down

You have an R after your name,
but, you play the RINO game,
you spend our money like a drunk,
like that prior skunk

There’s much more I could write,
I’m waiting for you to fight,
the obstructionists in your midst,
come on guys, get pissed!

Copyright 2002 By John J. Lindsay. All Rights Reserved
May 2, 2003

P.S. I haven't forgotten your question relative to the "patriot act".

Mud;

Re: your question on my concern that the "patriot act" is potentailly dangerous, here's a brief history of it culled from Google: Note the original acronym is USAPA which was changed to "patriot act" to give it the appearance of being about patriotism to which it has no connection whatsoever as it means "Providing Appropiate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". Clever use of semantics don't you think?

Commemts from Google: In quotations:

"The clumsily-titled "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"(USA PATRIOT Act, or USAPA) introduced a plethora of legislative changes which significantly increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States. The Act did not, however, provide for the system of checks and balances that traditionally safeguards civil liberties in the face of such legislation."

"Legislative proposals in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were introduced less than a week after the attacks. President Bush signed the final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act, into law on October 26, 2001. Though the Act made significant amendments to over 15 important statutes, it was introduced with great haste and passed with little debate, and without a House, Senate, or conference report. As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation."

"The Act was a compromise version of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (ATA), a far-reaching legislative package intended to strengthen the nation's defense against terrorism. The ATA contained several provisions vastly expanding the authority of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor private communications and access personal information. The final legislation included a few beneficial additions from the Administration's initial proposal: most notably, a so-called sunset provision (which provides that several sections of the act automatically expire after a certain period of time, unless they are explicitly renewed by Congress"

My Comments:

A resolution by congress is only a "sense of the congress" and is not really a declaration of war as too many details are not included such as a full definition of who the enemy is. "Terrorism" is a vague term and can include verbal threats, demonstrations, stalking, etc..

In fact, section 802 of the phony p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act gives a broad definition of terrorism in sections 5B (i) & (ii)

Pay particular attention to 5B relative to the words
"appear to be intended"

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended--!!!! (my eclamations)
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

I'm not an attorney, but, it sure looks like free speech and the right to assemble is a terrorist act if some appointed czar determines that a demonstration against a governement policy has a "bad intent", the same applies if someone "speaks" against a government policy.

Keep in mind, SECTION 802 Has No expiration date as does the rest of the act. Rather curious don't you think? Is it possible this will be the legal justification of the coming New World Order to stifle dissent? nyah! Our government wouldn't do that to us, now would they?

And yes, I do know that A,B & C are conjuntive, however, here's a scenario that poses a danger in the future:

A government goon(s) you know the ones I mean (Waco & Ruby Ridge) infiltrate a peaceful demonstration and set off a gun-shot or start a fight, the czar can then say the the demonstration "appeared to be intended" to injure the public or the safety of the public or to change a gov't policy(s) by coercian and force.

Now, to give the administration the benefit of the doubt that they wou't invoke this section, the fact remains that they are culpable in presenting and signing this monstrocity into law and giving the clinton types this enormous power in the future!

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."-- H.L. Mencken

I'll take my tin foil hat off now.

FReegards