Ron Paul Is The Biggest Threat To Take Back The White House

[Shotgun 442]

Just to clarify I'm not disagreeing with you on the corruption of government. My argument is against your comment that the Presidency is a farce, when the President actually has to do a ton of shit and make plenty of decisions. I completely agree Lobbyists and Congress is some of the most corrupt people on the face of this planet. I'm sure some of the Presidents own cabinet members are even at least a little corrupt, but the President does in fact make their own decisions based off their expertise, and they take the advise of people they apparently trust (his cabinet).

 

Whaaaat. Dude, do you understand what you are posting? The ability to make our decisions sounds good in a... perfect world? No... that should be a given. That's human nature. The ability to make choices, to determine what's right... what's wrong. Those are liberties given to us through birth. Don't make it sound awesome that the government is telling us how to think, eat, and shit.

 

My comment is taken further than what I meant. I'm talking about making our own decisions when it comes to crap like drugs or other things currently illegal or banned from the U.S. People in general are corrupt and will take advantage of whatever they can. Those types of things we can't trust to be legal because the country will seriously be fucked worse than it is if they are made legal. Not just in an economic sense, but in a personal health sense, which I think is more important for I actually value life over money.

 

The government telling us what to think? Really?? Last I seen this isn't North Korea. People make their own decisions and basically say what the fuck they want. If we were being told what to think there wouldn't be so much crap anti-government out there. People make there own decisions about things, some are simple minded and make their choices based off of what other people say yes but we're all given our own freedom of thought and speech. We're not told what to eat either seeing as we have so much unhealthy crap like fast food and steroids/pesticides in out food and water. If anything we don't have enough regulation when it comes to what we're eating.

 

And people are only "fucking retarded idiots" because sheep are the easiest to mold. You realize that our country wasn't always filled with those kind of people, right?

 

LOLWUT? Have you ever read a history book EVER?? People are just as retarded now as they were 100, 200, and 300 years ago. Citizens have no more control in government than we ever had aside for when mass protest comes into play, and people are still making the same exact stupid decisions when we can look back a few hundred years and see how bad of a decision it is.

 

And the tobacco industry is already taking advantage of idiots (no offense Blue, wherever you are , I know lots of smokers). They sell them death in a box.... and guess what. It's REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. lol... It's crazy, I know.

 

Exactly it's shitty regulation which is why we can't trust for things like drugs to become legal. It'll fuck up society even worse than cigs and alcohol already has.

 

See... that's the problem. You tell me above that there are corrupt people out there wanting to take advantage of people... But when you refer to the FDA, you don't want to assume that there are corrupt people running that sham of a department.

 

When did I say that? Of course the FDA is corrupt that's why they let companies use shit in the U.S. that's actually been banned in other countries. I wasn't saying they weren't corrupt I was saying they don't actually control what we eat, they just allow companies to do more than they should. Of course, if they made more things illegal and forced companies to do what they don't want to, wouldn't that fall under certain peoples definition of totalitarianism? Ron wants to make drugs legal but will he also allow companies to do what they want with the food they make?

 

Flouride in water. Do you know who started water flouridation? Hitler gave flouridated to the Jews in the confinement camps. THAT is where it began. But now it's pumped into our drinking water because our government says it's awesome? No... that's all part of keeping us stupid. And they are doing a good job of it.

 

The amount hitler gave the jews was beyond what the U.S. government allows in our water.

 

Fluoride was put in the water by idiots that thought it would be a great idea to prevent tooth decay. It started in the mid 1900's before anyone knew what the big negative effects were and these days people are actively fighting against continuous fluoridation of our water. I know in the city I live it was actually voted on and passed with the majority of citizens being for it. Not all water has fluoride by the way, I've lived in places that did not have it in it, but I now live somewhere that does so I only drink bottled water. Not that the plastic chemicals are much healthier.

 

 

And... I don't even know where to begin with the drugs. I mean... Are any drugs that legit? I guess there are bound to be some out there, but that whole process is shady as hell. Doctors are known to prescribe drugs to their patients without any other reason than the fact that they have "sponsors" in the drug industry who is trying to push a particular new drug or whatever the flavor of the month is. Again, you can look this up in your own time if interested.... But prepared to vomit, because the list of junk they pass is sickening.

 

I actually did a rather large report on this for class last year, so I've certainly learned enough about Big Pharma do detest them. The drugs prescribed are legit and actually do help, that's not the issue with Pharma. Problem is they re-make drugs, make minor differences that sometimes do nothing and sometimes is just an "easy" fix for a single symptom, and then they resell them as a new copyrighted drug that is higher priced. They pay and give gifts to many doctors so that they are more likely to prescribe their drugs. I think tests found that after receiving a gift, even a minor one, doctors were found to be much more likely to prescribe that drug. Luckily there are doctors out there that aren't like that and me and my wife have found some willing to first prescribe the cheap generic stuff before trying the more expensive kinds, because often the generics don't give people anymore symptoms than the higher priced ones, and sometimes it's even less symptoms in some people.

 

The government doesn't give a rats ass about your health, or mine. They don't care if you snort coke and kill 10 people, or if are found in an alley shooting up heroin... or if you are found in your tub ODing on meds. They don't give a shit.

 

They keep drugs illegal because they make billions off the "drug war" every year. The government imports tons, and tons of illegal drugs and par. every day. They then sell it to the mexicans, and other drug lords. Those guys sell it out to other smaller dealers... Who get ratted out to the cops... The cops come in, bust some dude up... Makes it look like they are serving the good of humanity... But in reality. They confiscate these drugs, and then put them back in circulation. It's a vicious, vicious cycle. THAT is why drugs, especially the hardcore ones, will never be legalized. They make so much damn money off of it, that even a tax on marijuana couldn't even make up the losses.

 

And you say it was ME who has too much faith in humanity? Eh.. lol

 

What the fuck? It's not me having too much faith in humanity it's me not being bat shit insane. Government doesn't care about out health? Yeah probably not. But government gives drugs to Mexicans? Do you even know how drug trafficking works? I guess the American government went into Mexico and stuffed Mexican cars for them to cross the border and get busted too huh? Do you think they are also paying all the people to farm the drugs up? Do you realize how much the government spends on trying to catch people growing marijuana in the woods of America? You say the government make money by confiscating drugs and reselling them yet there's plenty of evidence of them destroying drugs, and the amount of drugs they recover is extremely minimal compared to the amount that flood the country destroying cities.

 

You seriously think the government would actually make money off this even if it was true? They spent 15 billion dollars on the war on drugs in 2010, and an additional 25 billion dollars by state and local governments. That not even counting the amount of money that will be spent on putting the estimated over 1.7 million people in jail/prison this year. People underestimate the amount of money spent through the courts, which the vast majority of these dealers won't even go to jail afterward, at least not for long. So they go back on the streets to cost us even more money while the other percentage cost us money by just sitting in prison.

 

I don't even want to get started on how much the government spends on gangs that commit all sorts of costly crimes and property damage, who by the way are funded by drugs. Drugs you apparently think the government puts through out country themselves. Or how about the medical costs from all the poor drug addicts going in and out of hospitals? Who do you think pays for that shit?

 

 

I don't really understand this last paragraph. Prohibition didn't fail simply because people were addicted. People just enjoyed drinking... You didn't have to be addicted to alcohol to enjoy heading down to the local bar.

 

And you also have to take into consideration the time in which it happened. It was a time of revolting... People across the country (before prohibition began) were getting more fiesty in life. They were beginning to not be so conservative anymore. It was the age of Jazz and the flappers. People were more rebelious, they wanted to be different.. to live on the edge.

 

So when the government decides to ban something nearly everyone, at a time or two, enjoyed... People began to do what they were already doing in that era. They rebelled. Speakeasies sprouted every few blocks... People began bootlegging, and then you had the mafia and other mobster kinda activities increasing 10 fold.

 

Crime as a whole SKY ROCKETED. It was asinine to try and ban it in the first place. It was NEVER going to work, and that is dismissing the fact that there weren't enough cops to enforce the stupid law.

 

The "enjoyment" of drinking is an addiction in itself. And anyone who drinks alcohol is addicted to it no matter how much they like to deny it, so they go completely hand-in-hand. Just because someone doesn't binge drink doesn't mean they aren't addicted to it.

 

They rebelled and bootlegged because people wanted to drink alcohol and party, as they did before prohibition. People didn't just suddenly decide to drink just because it became illegal, they drunk even before that. Of course prohibition or banning of an addicted substance isn't going to work when it's been a part of world society for hundreds and even thousands of years.

 

And of course crime went up when people are selling something illegal in mass amounts and have violent gangs involved in it. It's no different than drugs, if they made drugs illegal crime would plummet because selling the drugs would no longer be illegal and companies would take a source of income from gangs, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Shotgun

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

 

 

He goes on to pretty much equate the Civil Rights Act to totalitarianism. That's presidential material right there, folks.

I don't even know what the fuck Ron Paul was saying because Christ Matthews wouldn't let him speak. He wouldn't let him say anything. The manuscript does little to help any of this because Matthews kept cutting him off.

 

This is basically the perfect example of why Ron Paul and anyone like him will NEVER stand a chance. Anytime he actually does get media time he has some asshole on Fox News or CNN sitting there trying to make him look crazy and not letting him speak.

[Guest Durant4MVP]

That's the major dilemma. For starters. He will never win the Presidency. Not because he's radical, like Phail wants you to believe... Or maybe that was just he liberal, anti-liberty blogs he is reading. But like I said earlier... Paul is too honest, too open to win election. He doesn't bull shit and he doesn't play the game.

 

That and the fact that he is a threat to the establishment and the process that they have nailed down over the last X years. He would theoretically destroy everything they have been building... They wouldn't allow that to happen.

 

Now... let's pretend Paul does get elected. They aren't going to actually let him change jack. IN all honesty, he would probably end up dead. Either "natural causes", which would be an easy sell because of his age... Or he would randomly develop cancer like say... Jack Ruby.

 

Oh that is such a cop out and you know it dude. He won't get elected because he's a fucking lunatic, not because he's "too honest." Going back to the gold standard? Isolationism? Legalizing every form of drug? Really?

[Guest Durant4MVP]

Anyone catch Ron Paul call Social Security and Medicare unconstitutional on Fox today? Yeah, he CLEARLY has a good understanding of the constitution.

[Krawnka 282]

The Constitution (1-10 Amendments) was devised to control government intrusion, leaving the majority of the legislation up to the individual states...

 

Bigger Federal government is essentially unconstitutional...according to the Bill of Rights

 

If you actually read the Constitution, just about everything after the 10th Amendment (Bill of Rights) is empowering the Federal government, allowing it to get bigger and bigger...

 

Take a look at the 16th amendment in particular what citizen in their right mind would want this?

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

And it's more Bilderberg, than Illuminati...

[Silentway 20]

Oh that is such a cop out and you know it dude. He won't get elected because he's a fucking lunatic, not because he's "too honest." Going back to the gold standard? Isolationism? Legalizing every form of drug? Really?

 

How many people do you know that haven't done drugs because they're illegal? I know about zero people like that, how many people wait until they're 21 to get drunk for the first time because of legality issues? Do you realize that we waste billions and billions of tax payer money and police time by policing a war on drugs that is completely un-winnable. How about this, how about we make drugs legal and spend the TINIEST FRACTION of that money on drug education and rehabilitation centers. Are you really that naive to think that wouldn't do 10x more damage on the war against drug addiction. I'm not biased either, I grew up with a heroin addict for a dad and I think that drugs being illegal is ridiculous. One major reason for marijuana being illegal is that the hemp market would stampede the tree/paper business, which is helping destroy our planet. Watch CNN, you'll see senators and business owners, we live in a government that caters to major money makers and money makers alone.

 

The gold standard is stupid? Do you realize that our fake ass money is printed by the Federal Reserve that is a PRIVATIZED bank that has absolutely NO affiliation with our government and they dictate the amount of money being printed, and can cause inflation at the drop of a hat. (see: The Great fucking Depression)

 

Oh, and btw... do you know when our country was at it's most prosperous? When we were an isolationist country and focused on growing and trading, it's also known as the Industrial Revolution. But unfortunately we're too pussy to do something like that again, it would be really easy to do with expansion of solar energy. (Germany has 30% of it's entire energy tied up in solar energy) But the problem is we owe Saudi Arabia bucketloads of money and if we stay dependent upon oils they're pacified and won't collect. So the only other money making venture for our country to partake in is war, and unfortunately that's been our cash crop since World War I and it hasn't stopped. The world hates us, I don't see why you think isolationism is absurd.

 

P.S. Medicare is unconstitutional because that's not the government's job to provide healthcare, we are not a socialist country. Sure there was an amendment to make medicare constitutional, but there's a reason it had to be amended. Honestly I'm a huge fan of socialism, but we live in a greedy capitalist economy and we're the descendents of power-hungry puritanical murderers and I don't think they should be in charge of our healthcare. I mean look at the corruption in our government, and all the ridiculous things that have happened like them refusing to acknowledge all the warnings and documents about 9/11 happening, and I could go on forever. And you want THEM being the sole owner of your health insurance? Why not have a choice and thus opening up the free market of insurance companies, and make them compete and actually lower prices. Instead you're going to be butt-hurt by all the taxes you're paying on it and be stupid enough to call it free.

 

Think for yourself man, if you spend 3 seconds reading between the lines of the newspaper and not allowing tv personalities to tell you how to think it's pretty easy to figure out how much everything is set up to favor rich people.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Silentway

[Guest Durant4MVP]

How many people do you know that haven't done drugs because they're illegal? I know about zero people like that, how many people wait until they're 21 to get drunk for the first time because of legality issues? Do you realize that we waste billions and billions of tax payer money and police time by policing a war on drugs that is completely un-winnable. How about this, how about we make drugs legal and spend the TINIEST FRACTION of that money on drug education and rehabilitation centers. Are you really that naive to think that wouldn't do 10x more damage on the war against drug addiction. I'm not biased either, I grew up with a heroin addict for a dad and I think that drugs being illegal is ridiculous. One major reason for marijuana being illegal is that the hemp market would stampede the tree/paper business, which is helping destroy our planet. Watch CNN, you'll see senators and business owners, we live in a government that caters to major money makers and money makers alone.

 

It's about more than the money and the numbers.

 

The gold standard is stupid? Do you realize that our fake ass money is printed by the Federal Reserve that is a PRIVATIZED bank that has absolutely NO affiliation with our government and they dictate the amount of money being printed, and can cause inflation at the drop of a hat. (see: The Great fucking Depression)

 

Wrong example, broski. We were under the gold standard during the great depression. Nixon ended it in '71.

 

Oh, and btw... do you know when our country was at it's most prosperous? When we were an isolationist country and focused on growing and trading, it's also known as the Industrial Revolution. But unfortunately we're too pussy to do something like that again, it would be really easy to do with expansion of solar energy. (Germany has 30% of it's entire energy tied up in solar energy) But the problem is we owe Saudi Arabia bucketloads of money and if we stay dependent upon oils they're pacified and won't collect. So the only other money making venture for our country to partake in is war, and unfortunately that's been our cash crop since World War I and it hasn't stopped. The world hates us, I don't see why you think isolationism is absurd.

 

That was a LONG LONG LONG time before globalization. Before we had the Internet. Before crazy ass dictators got nukes. Before the USA stopped exporting more than it imported.

 

P.S. Medicare is unconstitutional because that's not the government's job to provide healthcare, we are not a socialist country. Sure there was an amendment to make medicare constitutional, but there's a reason it had to be amended. Honestly I'm a huge fan of socialism, but we live in a greedy capitalist economy and we're the descendents of power-hungry puritanical murderers and I don't think they should be in charge of our healthcare. I mean look at the corruption in our government, and all the ridiculous things that have happened like them refusing to acknowledge all the warnings and documents about 9/11 happening, and I could go on forever. And you want THEM being the sole owner of your health insurance? Why not have a choice and thus opening up the free market of insurance companies, and make them compete and actually lower prices. Instead you're going to be butt-hurt by all the taxes you're paying on it and be stupid enough to call it free.

 

1. Not constitutional? The Supreme Court disagrees. Section 1, Article 8, "providing for the general welfare..."

2. You cannot have a completely capitalist (ie. Libertarian) country. The best mixes the best of both worlds from capitalism and socialism. Corporations don't have the consumers best interests at heart so when they're fucking over people on something as important as medical care, it's the government's job to step in.

3. The government doesn't own the health care system and it likely never will. They stepped in to help lower costs and stop shitty practices like rescission and denying pre-existing conditions. There's no such thing as a "free market" when it comes to health insurance because of the absurd costs of the system. People don't know what kind of coverage they need nor do they know shit about the medical practice. They have zero knowledge to bring to the bargaining table. There is no level playing field here.

 

Think for yourself man, if you spend 3 seconds reading between the lines of the newspaper and not allowing tv personalities to tell you how to think it's pretty easy to figure out how much everything is set up to favor rich people.

 

I know it is, and it would be even worse under a libertarian system. I can't stand behind a party that continues to cut taxes for the wealthy, cut corporate taxes, cut estate taxes, etc. at the expensive of services for the poor and disabled with this bullshit claim that "trickle down economics works." That's a load of horseshit. Look at the margin of increase in middle class wages and the wealthy's wages over the last 40-50 years as taxes have gotten lower and lower and lower. The gap is getting bigger, the cost of living is going up, and the middle class is getting fucked.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

So, how do you know that Ron Paul isn't just a puppet set up by the government just to give people like you someone in the system that you trust?

 

I think it is obvious that I would be pretty devastated if that were the case... I find it extremely unlikely.. But I guess you never know. For us to find out though, he would have to win office first.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Yeah, Paul is pretty radical in some of his beliefs. But guess what? We've had non-radical presidents of late, and where has it gotten us? Trillions of dollars in debt, that's where. Whatever Washington is doing, it isn't fucking working.

 

Of course, Paul also strikes me as a guy who could easily become a danger to the establishment, like JFK (if you believe those stories).

[seanbrock 1,684]

Yeah, Paul is pretty radical in some of his beliefs. But guess what? We've had non-radical presidents of late, and where has it gotten us? Trillions of dollars in debt, that's where. Whatever Washington is doing, it isn't fucking working.

 

Of course, Paul also strikes me as a guy who could easily become a danger to the establishment, like JFK (if you believe those stories).

Yeah, if Paul was ever elected he would be immediately killed by the CIA. Not a joke.

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

"Take back the White House"?

[blotsfan 2,112]

I think it is obvious that I would be pretty devastated if that were the case... I find it extremely unlikely.. But I guess you never know. For us to find out though, he would have to win office first.

He never will though. Its just someone for the people who know the truth to follow. Gives them hope so they don't rebel, but he'll never win.

[Krawnka 282]

If the government is just trying to help lower the costs, then why are they implementing new taxes?

 

 

1 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE

2 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

3 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual

4 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at

5 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed

6 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

7 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in8

come for the taxable year, over

9 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in

10 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer

 

So basically, if you don't have "Acceptable" Health Care, you have to pay taxes? Why does it specify "Acceptable"?

 

Unless you're a "Non Resident Alien"

 

‘‘(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS.—Subsection (a)

8 shall not apply to any individual who is a non

resident alien.

 

According to what I'm reading, just about the only coverage deemed "Acceptable" is other Government (Taxpayer) funded coverages, such as Medicaid, Military, Congressional, Presidential, etc....

 

All others are forced to pay into the Health Care "Exchange", through taxes?

 

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

He never will though. Its just someone for the people who know the truth to follow. Gives them hope so they don't rebel, but he'll never win.

 

Actually... Ron Paul gives people a reason to rebel. It doesn't make them complacent, lol. Haven't you heard of the Tea Party? That's Ron Paul.

[Silentway 20]

It's about more than the money and the numbers.

 

how about we make drugs legal and spend the TINIEST FRACTION of that money on drug education and rehabilitation centers. Are you really that naive to think that it wouldn't do 10x more damage on the war against drug addiction.

How many people do you know that haven't done drugs because they're illegal? I know about zero people like that, how many people wait until they're 21 to get drunk for the first time because of legality issues?

What more reason do you need to legalize drugs? I think that the obvious reality of doing more on the war against drug addiction is about 10x more important, considering the law isn't stopping ANYONE from doing drugs. I won't speed in my car for respect of the law, I pay my city taxes, and I'm generally a very law abiding citizen. However I smoked weed every single day for 4 years, if the drug ban isn't stopping someone as timid and respectful of the law as me, imagine all the people out there that need actual help and only get resistance. Utterly stupid.

 

Wrong example, broski. We were under the gold standard during the great depression. Nixon ended it in '71.

I think you'd be referring to the Gold Exchange Standard not the Gold Standard. We still had the ability to set the price of the dollar out of thin air.

 

 

1. Not constitutional? The Supreme Court disagrees. Section 1, Article 8, "providing for the general welfare..."

2. You cannot have a completely capitalist (ie. Libertarian) country. The best mixes the best of both worlds from capitalism and socialism. Corporations don't have the consumers best interests at heart so when they're fucking over people on something as important as medical care, it's the government's job to step in.

3. The government doesn't own the health care system and it likely never will. They stepped in to help lower costs and stop shitty practices like rescission and denying pre-existing conditions. There's no such thing as a "free market" when it comes to health insurance because of the absurd costs of the system. People don't know what kind of coverage they need nor do they know shit about the medical practice. They have zero knowledge to bring to the bargaining table. There is no level playing field here.

 

Wow, here you just don't know what you're talking about. How has the government stepped in to lower costs in health care? Do you realize that a bottle of prescription medicine that may cost between $50-$100 without insurance, and $10-20 WITH insurance... is typically like $15 without insurance in ANY other developed country? The drug companies and all the middle men (who are vigorously backed by the US Government) make medicine 10x more expensive than it has to be. If we actually DID have a free market with medicine, there would be real competition, and people would have to come down in prices and actually offer the best stuff possible. Instead they just have to buy out the FDA, hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies, and guess who fronts the bill? YOU DO with the price of Rx's.

 

I know it is, and it would be even worse under a libertarian system. I can't stand behind a party that continues to cut taxes for the wealthy, cut corporate taxes, cut estate taxes, etc. at the expensive of services for the poor and disabled with this bullshit claim that "trickle down economics works." That's a load of horseshit. Look at the margin of increase in middle class wages and the wealthy's wages over the last 40-50 years as taxes have gotten lower and lower and lower. The gap is getting bigger, the cost of living is going up, and the middle class is getting fucked.

 

Okay, where are you getting this information at? Just because Ron Paul runs under the Republican banner does NOT mean he is a typical neo-con. I hate Reaganomics as much as anybody, except for maybe Ron Paul. Ron Paul wants to eliminate all income tax actually, and agrees with a lot of what the Fair Tax has to say so long as there isn't a high national sales tax on things implemented instead.

 

Get with the program man.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Silentway

[Krawnka 282]

VAT Tax would be 100x more fair than income tax...unfortunately, the "phasing out" of income tax would never end, and we'd just be paying double taxes.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Well let's see...We freed the slaves in 1865 but they couldn't actually vote for another 100 years. We pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and in just over 40 years have made major improvements in race relations. Yeah those damned government institutions really slowed down racial equality progress.

 

I'm not being any more vague than you are. You go on and on with the same "federal government is impeding on our liberties" stuff but haven't provided any real examples yet besides prohibition and marijuana.

How about our freedom of speech and press?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/18/white-house-alleged-to-have-punished-unfavorable-press-again/

[Guest Durant4MVP]

How about our freedom of speech and press?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/18/white-house-alleged-to-have-punished-unfavorable-press-again/

 

Refusing to talk to them doesn't violate freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

[Krawnka 282]

You go on and on with the same "federal government is impeding on our liberties" stuff but haven't provided any real examples yet besides prohibition and marijuana.

 

 

Hmmm....Patriot Act ring a bell?

 

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

A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00015 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056

115 STAT. 286 PUBLIC LAW 107–56—OCT. 26, 2001

(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 period of its execution, which period may

thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.’’.

 

So basically allowing direct violation of the 4th amendment at their "discretion"? Who needs a warrant when so many people sport beards nowadays....Oh it was a nightgown? I thought it was a muslim robe...

 

Just a reminder, the Patriot act was renewed by the current administration...further proof that there's no real difference in the political parties, other than the abortion issue...and gay marriage.

 

While we're on the topic of 4th amendment, let's not overlook the TSA....I don't even feel I need to quote anything, as their violations of civil liberties is well known enough.

 

But, what the hell..why not:

 

[1] Airport screenings of passengers and their baggage constitute

administrative searches and are subject to the limitations

of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Davis, 482

F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973) (noting that airport screenings

are considered to be administrative searches because they are

“conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme†where the

essential administrative purpose is “to prevent the carrying of

weapons or explosives aboard aircraftâ€); see also id. at 895,

904. Thus, airport screenings must be reasonable. See Torbet

v. United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002).

To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right

to be free of intrusion with “society’s interest in safe air travel.â€

United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 (9th

Cir. 1986).

 

"Reasonable"? Another ruling left up to the discretion of the violators.

 

While "legally" they're skirt-tailing the 4th amendment, they're blatantly violating it, abusing THEIR system, and laughing in our faces over it. If they get too close to actually violating it, then just create another loophole right?

 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf

 

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf

[Krawnka 282]

Oh hey, speaking of the 1st Amendment:

 

http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/101608

[Silentway 20]

Whoa whoa whoa guys, there's an awful lot of fact giving here and I don't appreciate it. Lets just be casually informative, and discuss this in the parameters of stereotypes and hearsay. Look, Ron Paul is a lunatic because I haven't heard one mainstream tv personality agree with him, and none of the other people that actually get a lot of votes and support of the electoral college agree with him either. You guys are just conspiracy theorists if you don't think everybody on television, in office, and in charge of giving us information aren't telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help us God. P.S. these colors don't run.