Posted on 12/17/2001 5:05:25 AM PST by johnandrhonda
Hecklers drowned out a commencement speech when the speaker said the federal investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks might threaten civil liberties. Janis Besler Heaphy, president and publisher of The Sacramento Bee, was speaking Saturday to 17,000 people at California State University-Sacramento. When she raised questions about racial profiling, limits on civil liberties, and the establishment of military tribunals, the audience interrupted by heckling, clapping, and stomping their feet for five minutes. Heaphy stopped speaking but said she plans to continue to voice her concerns about potential civil liberties violations.
No kidding. Thanks, Zon, for trying to be a voice of reason and stick to the debatable issues.
Since we don't have a Coalition for Houseplant rights yet--that I know of--I take exception to comparing anyone's IQ to one. Might be biased against the houseplant.</sarcasm (or is it?)>
If people want to close their eyes to the issues, perhaps it is best to take fod's advice and just go shopping.
LET'S ROLL! (to the mall..)~ fod
ROTFL!!!!!!!
If you're ignorant how would you know it?
Don't worry, even thought you're against all jurors being informed of their power to nullify the law, they can still save you from your ignorance when it's your turn to be the defendant.
Don't expect your crony, Impeach the Boy, to be of any help either. He wants to strip away your 2nd amendment rights - leaving you to the mercy of the parasitical elite you bow to.
I support a strong defense. I think we are not doing enough to crush the enemies of our republic. I support military courts for military actions. I support using all resources of our citizens to destroy the enemies of our nation of soveriegn citizens. I support profiling by any demographic if it aides in the procecution of criminals. I reject treating my myself or my neighbor as criminal. I deplore the impinging upon my rights to liberty. I deplore the solution of more government to provide us comfort. What we need is more empowerment to private citizens to defend our common interests. Conquer we must, for our cause it is just. Fight for Liberty, with Liberty, and Justice for all.
Is this the same message?
The best Islamic scholars are working right now to find some verse or teachings that allows Islam to be compatiable with pulralism, democracy and relating to how Muslims can do business with infidels and their institutions and they cannot come up with anything. These people need to go back to their homelands if they want to live under Islamic principles. We have finally ran into something that is far too diverse to tolerate in safety.
(: ROTFL :)
Let's see, what else can be champion for? ...I know; how about a Dumb Blonde Coalition???
Once again, unable to deal with the subject at hand... you simply attempt to change the subject.
Nice try...
Same thing today with Foreign Policy. We have a war against some terrorists because we often give some badguys a hearty "atta boy" in Kosovo or a "didn't see a thing" in the Saudi desert. Justice is something to be purchased with oil or drugs. We do not have a strong defense, our soldiers are the finest and most courageous you can find, it is not them that are derilect in defense of our Constitution.
It is the foreign entanglements, the hidden cash flows, the political cash cows that pollute justice and compromise our very existence as a nation. What we need is a simpler time and swifter justice, more David Boaz thinking with a badge to defend us against enemies outside our borders.
For the enemies within, we need private empowerment. If American Airlines wants us to board planes, let them convince the consumer that they are secure. Let the goverment do their only job that we demand be done efficiently, destroy our enemies. Government has failed us before, why give them a second chance?
Seeing as you're still here, how about we compare the facts and track records...
Democrats and republicans are responsible for over 20,000 violations against the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms. That's 20,000 unconstitutional "laws".
Democrats and republicans say this: "the government can't be trusted, The People even have a 4th Amendment to protect themselves from us, but The People must trust total strangers and open their doors to them." Think discrimination laws.
Republicans and democrats expanded the national debt to over five-trillion dollars.
Democrats and republicans have committed by far the greatest number of violations against The People, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Okay, your turn...
__________________
I recently learned of the commencement speech given this year at your University.
I wasn't surprised at the content of the speech, considering it is California but I was disappointed for the students.
It is the job of the University to ensure that the speaker is going to deliver a speech marking the students experiences at School and encouraging them into their future (a future that consists of a lot more "work" than "activism") and to make certain that it isn't a bad memory.
I have received several e-mails concerning the disappointment within the student body that the faculty would allow their commencement to be used as an anti-governmental policy pulpit.
Below are a few quotes I highlighted from the speech. Wholly inappropriate for a College Commencement speech.
"the parents would like a speech that is somewhat sentimental. The faculty would prefer a speech that is substantive. And the graduates want a speech that is, well, short ...I'll do my best to strike a balance among all those demands."
"No one argues the validity and need for both retaliation and security. But to what lengths are we willing to go to achieve them? Specifically, to what degree are we willing to compromise our civil liberties in the name of security?"
"Clearly, against the backdrop of fear and uncertainty we must reevaluate our policies regarding surveillance and espionage."
"But what would happen to our individual privacy if wiretaps were to become common and widespread?"
"But what would it do to our society if racial-profiling became routine and individuals were treated as suspects solely on the basis of their resembling known criminals?"
"Perhaps most troubling is the establishment of a secret military tribunal that would be used to try accused terrorists."
"The Constitution makes it our right to challenge government policies."
"The Founding Fathers..."
"House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt..."
"the administration..."
"the press..."
"National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice..."
"Under pressure from the Pentagon..."
"the White House..."
"bin Laden..."
"Scrutiny by the press..."
"the line between national security and the public's right to know..."
"Thomas Friedman of the New York Times..."
You failed your graduating body miserably and in doing so...soured many of them to honest and open critique of our Government.
Shame on you csus.
Sounds a bit alarmist to me.
I am, this is not the Republican Party I used to Love!
All the Leftist who didn't like Clinton must have moved in on us kinda like the Republicans (leaving us) by voting for Perot or Clinton so they wouldn't have another 4 years of Bush (I was one, voting for Perot)!
I hate it when that happens but I know there are more like me out there than meets their eyes and the press would never let that out of the bag would they!
At least that's what Eleanor Roosevelt says.
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.