It is probably true that I have not made many posts which did not indicate a critical attitude toward Bush. That is because I believe he is rushing us into a New World Order, and too many individuals who post on Free Republic seem to have blind allegiance to Bush no matter what he does.

Of course most of the Dems also are pushing toward a New World Order, but they are not in control of the administration now, and it's pointless to argue with the Dems on Free Republic since they're not interested in this web site.

Do you deny that George Herbert Walker Bush called for a New World Order at the time of the Gulf War, and do you really think George W. is 180 degrees apart from his father?

It is probably true that I have not made many posts which did not indicate a critical attitude toward Bush. That is because I believe he is rushing us into a New World Order, and too many individuals who post on Free Republic seem to have blind allegiance to Bush no matter what he does.

So your consistency is pure but those that disagree with you are White House operatives. Do you see the contradiction here?

Bob Barr is not a traitor he just happens to fit with the ACLU's opposition to Bush on certain issues and he will be the token conservative they put forward ala Allen Keyes and Pat Buchanan.. They will drop him like a whore’s underwear the minute a democrat is re-elected.

"In effect, there is NO protection against the accidental or intentional release of any of your private data."

The first flaw in your argument is that it is erroneous to consider data that someone else pays to collect "yours", much less private (except of course, private to the company that paid to collect it). The data might be about you, but that doesn't make it yours.

Further, you go on to make the logical mistake of concluding that companies are compelled by force of arms to turn over all of their private data. That's simply not the case. Sure, some companies will turn over some of their private data. Others will sell or trade some of their data. Still others will either refuse or fail to have the technical capabilities to turn it over (e.g. there are still paper-based firms).

Yes, I'm sure that the concept of big, bad, evil corporations tracking their sales and their customers' preferences really frightens you. Yes, I'm sure that it scares you even more to think that some of those companies are going to be giving their data to the federal government, and yes, I'm sure that you would love to instigate laws that would forbid private companies from selling or trading any of their data.

But none of that is Nazi-esque, as you claim. Nor is any of if illegal or unconsitutional. It doesn't even have anything to do with a "New World Order", either.

Did you even read the HSA bill? Did the provision to arm pilots really frighten you so much that you had to start posting ridiculous anti-HSA and anti-Bush nonsense left and right? Or was it the provision in the HSA that instituted some tort reform that protects drug-makers from trial lawyers that so strikes fear in your heart?

Hoooooboy, now there are some real "Nazi" provisions! < /SARCASM >

That information is ALREADY is existing databases and available for sale. - Southack

"WRONG! You have obviously never dealt in the real world of marketing and lawyers. Only a small portion of what companies collect is available for sale." - Action-America

If companies already collect it, then it is already in their databases as I stated above (presuming that they aren't still paper-based, of course).

And anything that a private company has, is available for sale in a capitalistic society.

Nice try, but no cigar for you.

Hey ACLU

KICK THEIR ASS!!!!!

No, I don't see any contradiction.

See the following.

==============================

London Financial Times

By Edward Alden in Washington

Published: November 27 2002 16:02 |

Last Updated: November 27 2002 16:02

President George W. Bush on Wednesday named Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, to head the politically charged investigation into Washington’s intelligence failures prior to the September 11 attacks.

The appointment, which surprised political observers, came as Mr Bush signed into law legislation authorising the creation of the commission, which had initially been resisted by the White House.

Mr Bush said that Mr Kissinger would bring "broad experience, clear thinking and careful judgment to this important task." The White House agreed this month to establish the independent commission under pressure from congressional Democrats and the families of many of those killed on September 11.

The investigation, which could last for up to 18 months, is supposed to build on the work of the congressional intelligence committees by determining why the government failed to avert the deadliest attack in US history. It is expected to make recommendations for the reform of US intelligence agencies. Mr Kissinger said on Wednesday the president had assured him the inquiry would not be restricted by any foreign policy considerations, including any role that Saudi Arabia may have played in aiding the hijackers.

But questions are likely to be raised about Mr Kissinger’s extensive links with foreign governments as part of Kissinger & Associates, his consulting business. Unlike ordinary government appointees, Mr Kissinger will not be required to disclose all his clients before serving on the commission.

Some critics claimed Mr Kissinger’s appointment would make a thorough investigation impossible. The liberal Federation of American Scientists called it "an astonishing move that heralds stark limits on the scope of the investigation." (Note: Warhorse has never supported this organization in the past.)

The inquiry may also run into political obstacles. In agreeing to establish the commission, the White House had insisted on appointing the chairman and four other members of the 10-man commission. Congressional Democrats will name the other five members no later than December 15.

Mr Kissinger’s solid foreign policy and Republican credentials could make him a safe choice to head the commission. White House officials are hoping to avoid any embarrassing conclusions in the midst of President Bush’s re-election drive in 2004. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said on Wednesday that Mr Bush did not expect to testify before the commission. Mr Kissinger was national security adviser and secretary of state for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and was intimately involved in some of the most notable successes and controversial failures in postwar US foreign policy. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the Vietnam war.

White House officials are hoping to avoid any embarrassing conclusions in the midst of President Bush’s re-election drive in 2004

Let's see, Bush was in office precisely 7 months before 911. Since he effectively had no transition period he spent the 1st 6 months trying to get his cabinet approved by the democrats in the senate and dealing with the Tax cuts, and his other domestic agenda items. Now, just exactly what "embarrassing" revelations does the Whitehouse fear?

"too many individuals who post on Free Republic seem to have blind allegiance to Bush no matter what he does."

That's an interesting "justification" for your hostility, considering that my complaint to watcher1 on this thread was that he clearly hadn't read the HSA bill because he was slandering it as though it contained language that simply isn't in the bill.

Do you have "blind allegiance" to every fringe-party fad that makes into on FR? Do you make blind criticisms even when you haven't read the bill in question? Do you attack anyone who dares question the "wisdom" of the anarchists, liberals, disruptors, and libertarians?

Or did you have a specific point to make, say, about the HSA or Patriot bill's specific textual language?

Come on, surely if those bills are such egregious violators of all possible human freedom and liberty, then surely you can post a sentence or two from the very language of those bills that deserves to be publicly discussed.

And surely that sort of line of debate and discourse would be more productive than merely attacking anyone who dares post a controversial counter-opinion to a popular urban legend or two.

Unless, of course, you can't actually find anything that resembles the common urban legends of those bills in their actual text.

I mean, it would just look awful if people were to see you exposed as having fallen for yet another "I'm more conservative than you, and this bill ends all freedom, and anyone who supports it is a Nazi or a liberal" style of urban legend...

Kissinger is a very clever man who has amassed some extremely hostile enemies in the media over the years. His Kissinger and Associates consultancy has also hired numerous Clinton-ites and former cabinet members. While such hirings make him appear bi-partisan, it also makes it child's play for any biased reporter to link his firm to any vast number of Clinton-era corruption scandals.

And Bush knows all of that.

So one has to ask, why would Bush bring in an ultra-clever bi-partisan Nobel Peace Prize winner for a non-political investigation into 9/11, knowing full well that this choice will be ruthlessly HAMMERED 24/7 by the media?

And the short answer is because Bush wants a smart-enough team to actually gleen all possible knowlege from the 9/11 attacks.

The long answer is that Kissinger is ideally situated and uniquely qualified to actually unravel the remaining 9/11 mysteries. For one thing, Kissinger understands precisely how much the Communists funded various radical extremists over the years. For another, Kissinger was over the BAN funds. The Banco Nationale Al Lorenz (or some such name) was the Atlanta facility used to supply Iraq with $4 Billion in off the book funds back when the U.S. was motivated to keep Iran and Iraq in a perpetual state of mutually destructive war.

Knowing the off-the-books methods of transferring large amounts of funds into and out of the Middle-East is a REQUIREMENT for resolving 9/11. Not only did Bin Ladin come from the Middle-East, but many Communist organizations such as the PFLP resides there.

It is the PFLP (formerly known as Black September) that has the expertise to hijack aircraft. Furthermore, the PFLP is a known recipient of Iraqi funding ("martyrs rewards").

One PFLP leader was recently killed in Africa. He was leading the entire Al Qaeda organization there.

Al Qaeda. Black September. Iraq.

If you want to resolve the September 11 attacks, then you'd be hard-pressed to name someone more qualified than Kissinger. He's got the Middle-East funding and money-movement knowlege that will be required to nail this information down.

And it is because Kissinger is so uniquely qualified that Bush brought him in, even though this is going to be a PR nightmare.

The press is going to savage Bush by tying him to Kissinger.

It takes a man of great character to make the right decision even when said decision is going to cost him for making it, but Bush truly wants 9/11 to be resolved, and there simply isn't anyone else who has Kissinger's qualifications.

So you're a style over substance kind of fellow?!

Hey ACLU

KICK THEIR ASS!!!!!

Bump that!

Big Brother is watching you

Thanks for the link to the online version of "1984", watcher1. Since the passage of the sinister USA ~~Patriot~~ Police State Act, I have been meaning to take some time out to read "1984" again. With over a thousand books in my library, I have been unable to locate it, even though I know that I have it around here somewhere. It has been at least 30 years since I last read it. But now, with the passage of the not to be sufficiently damned ~~Homeland~~ Fatherland Security Act, it is now even more appropriate.

Some of the bushbots and the "GOP can do no wrong" crowd should take the time to read it, too. But, I suppose that would be asking too much. It might actually make them think beyond the GOP/Bush propaganda sound bites that they keep quoting and who knows where such independent thought might lead. They can't take the chance. After all, it could be addictive. They might even start doing it on a regular basis! It's much easier to just let the "Party" do the thinking for them. After all, as Big Brother said, "Ignorance is power". Yeah, right!

The only major differences between Orwell's vision and reality is that Orwell missed the date by 25 years or so and he expected that the Soviets, not the US government, would be the ones to impose such austere controls on society.

It was not lost on me, that the arrogant ba$+^rd$ at the Information Awareness Office chose as their motto, the phrase "scientia est potentia" or "Knowledge is power", as a play on the 1984, "Ignorance is power". It was also not lost on me that the IAO logo includes the eye atop a pyramid, which is the symbol of the Illuminatti. Whether or not you believe that the Illuminatti are still around, working in the background for world governance, it does make one wonder...

The ~~Homeland~~ Fatherland Security Act certainly takes us a long way toward Orwell's vision.

"Thanks for the link to the online version of "1984", watcher1."

I think everyone should read, or re-read it.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/cc-books.html

Link to the book 1984 by George Orwell

watcher1: Really? It looks to me that the 4th Amendment has been thrown out, and parts of the 1st.

dirtboy: Show me the specific sections. Not claims from an editorial column, but actual cites.
Southack: I asked for you to show me the paragraph in the HSA bill that legalized "burglary" (your word, not mine) per your wild-eyed claim. And you, you can't show such a paragraph because it doesn't exist. Your ENTIRE rant against the Homeland Security Act is based upon a lie, your lie. Show me the paragraph in the HSA bill that backs up your wild-eyed claim, or else admit that you are just another Chicken Little running around trying to scare innocent people into believing that "lies" equal "facts".
Southack: Moreover, you can't find the paragraphs in those laws that would support your wild-eyed claims (probably because such language isn't in them to begin with).

OK. For you blind bushbots who don't believe that the government has now granted itself (with massive GOP support, I might add) the authority to enter and search your home without notification, here it is. It actually predates the ~~Homeland~~ Fatherland Security Act by about a year, since it was part of the almost as sinister USA ~~Patriot~~ Police State Act. In fact, this section is only one of the several reasons that the USA ~~Patriot~~ Police State Act was initially denounced by constitutional scholars on both sides of the political aisle, as being the "greatest single assault on the 4th Amendment in the history of the United States." Of course, now that the ~~Homeland~~ Fatherland Security Act has passed (also, with massive GOP support), it dwarfs the USA ~~Patriot~~ Police State Act in its attack on, not only the 4th Amendment, but also on its lesser threats to six other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

It's almost too easy. Since the bushbots have no logical arguments and must therefore resort to name calling and repeating the same tired old Dubya/GOP propaganda sound bites, the presentation of the real facts is all that it takes to shoot them down in flames. Even those bushbots who may be aware that the government has granted themselves this unconstitutional authority in another solidly Republican supported bill, have to resort to the weak semantics of saying that such legislation isn't in the ~~Homeland~~ Fatherland Security Act, as if that somehow exonerates the Republicans who voted for it in the USA ~~Patriot~~ Police State Act. They are to brainwashed to realize that more Republicans than Democrats voted for the USA ~~Patriot~~ Police State Act, that granted the government the unconstitutional right to "unreasonable" search and seizure "without notification".

Here is the link to the USA ~~Patriot~~ Police State Act:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:h3162enr.txt.pdf

For the bushbots who are too busy worshiping the sacred Elephant of the GOP, to read the whole thing, here is the actual text of just the section where both parties overwhelmingly granted themselves the right to "Covert Searches" of your home:

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended— H. R. 3162—15
            (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before ‘‘In addition’’; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ‘‘(b) DELAY.—With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if—

    ‘‘(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
    ‘‘(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
     ‘‘(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable (what does that mean?) period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.’’.

There it is. Right out of the USA ~~Patriot~~ Police State Act.

I seriously suggest that people like Southack and dirtboy read the whole thing, as well at the complete ~~Homeland~~ Fatherland Security Act. And, as you read each paragraph, keep thinking, "How could Hillary misuse this paragraph?" Because sooner or later, even if it isn't Hillary, some power hungry idiot will become President and twist every law that he can to his benefit. With all the powers that these two ominous bills grant the government, it's a sure bet that they will be among the first to be exploited by such a President.

On the other hand, as I stated before, judging by the fact that Dubya's man in charge of the IAO is convicted Iran/Contra master mind, John Poindexter, we may not have to wait for the "next" power hungry President. After all, there is a lot of truth in the saying, "You can judge a man by the company he keeps."

It's interesting how the bushbots keep pointing to the few really good parts of the ~~Homeland~~ Fatherland Security Act, like allowing pilots to be armed, as if that somehow nullifies all of the trampling on the Constitution that is also contained in that same bill. I wonder how they would react if the Republicans had voted for the exact same bill, but with only one additional phrase added, "No act of law may be passed or enforced by any state, that would have the effect of restricting a persons right to have an abortion." I guarantee that you wouldn't hear them saying, (Southack) "Yeah, it sure is arrogant of me to like the Homeland Security Act arming our commercial airline pilots..." They would be falling all over themselves denouncing it for just that one sentence.

Yet, because it doesn't touch one of their pet issues and the Dubya/GOP propaganda folks have instructed them that it's all OK, they are content ignore the fact that the ~~Homeland~~ Fatherland Security Act contains 47 pages of legislation that virtually shreds the 4th Amendment.

BTW Warhorse, your point is well taken. I do wonder if people like Southack and dirtboy have ever criticized anything Bush has ever done or whether, as you suggest, they are simply plants, told to post on a pro-American website pretending they are "conservative", but assigned to stop true patriots from objecting too much to the outrages Bush has been subjecting us to.

I have to wonder about the age of most of the bushbots, too. I remember when I was a young and idealistic twenty-something, still learning my way around the world. I used to fall for all the same type of party propaganda. Hopefully, their wakeup call will be the gentle nudge of awareness that comes with growing up, rather than the sound of Big Brother breaking in the door.

It's time to wake up, conservatives. I know that it's nice to live in your own little dream world. It's good that the people and the birds and the flowers all know you there. But, while you sit and dream and keep voting for the same people of both parties, who keep subverting the Constitution, "1984" is fast approaching. The ~~Homeland~~ Fatherland Security Act goes a long way toward enabling that eventuality.

"Hey ACLU KICK THEIR ASS!!!!!"

Was it the provision in the HSA to arm pilots that has you demanding it be repealed?

Frankly, I find that position to be far too anti-gun for my tastes...

"For you blind bushbots who don't believe that the government has now granted itself (with massive GOP support, I might add) the authority to enter and search your home without notification, here it is. It actually predates the Homeland Fatherland Security Act by about a year, since it was part of the almost as sinister USA Patriot Police State Act. In fact, this section is only one of the several reasons that the USA Patriot Police State Act was initially denounced by constitutional scholars on both sides of the political aisle, as being the "greatest single assault on the 4th Amendment in the history of the United States."

Did you miss the fact that the law in question still requires all government agencies to go before a judge and obtain a search warrant?

That hardly "guts" the 4th Amendment.

Yes, the law allows the government to get a search warrant and wait until after the search has finished to show you the warrant.

Oh my, the sky is falling. Clearly the government has banned all freedom and gutted the Bill of Rights by making the government go get search warrants prior to searches...

< /SARCASM >