Slashdot Mirror

Nope. The FBI knew "there were intelligence community concerns about the reliability of the main evidence", and FISA Court wiretapping on US citizens requires vetted evidence.

Just ... wow. For someone who screams about "reading comprehension" you sure as shit don't have any.

Obama CAUGHT Bin Laden - Oh yeah. Fuck the SEALS / Intelligence Officers / Soliders that did the work, OBAMA (the strategic mastermind) personally caught Bin Laden. That's some strong ass Koolaide you've got there. Also telling that you pull this out, because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

On the subject of DACA - Not one single court decision has sided with you in the way that matters. Of the cases you will undoubtedly try to pull out to say there was support:
Arizona Joe's case was thrown out for lack of standing.
Mississippi's Customs Officers' case was thrown out due to ... lack of standing.

Meanwhile, the attempted expansions (DAPA) of it were blocked by the courts. Were it not for the death of Scalia, the Supreme Court would almost certainly have struck down DACA during 2016. But the deeper level of mistake is this - you continue equate a decision to prioritize enforcement elsewhere to somehow constitute PROTECTION. "Good news, we'll ignore you (for now)." But DHS deciding that what is a priority this year is NO PROTECTION when next year's priorities can just ... be different.

I don't care which administration issues executive orders that attempt to create new law, I will not support the elevation of the President to King. President Cheeto is awful. But King Cheeto? That is terrifying.

The shitstains in Congress won't do their jobs? They need to be held accountable and DO THEIR JOBS. Outrage needs to build until the whole bloody lot of them are thrown out and representatives that will legislate effectively are put in place. Modification of law or the creation of new law goes through Congress. Full stop.

Here's some reading to educate yourself with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://aclj.org/immigration/e...

Abuse of power is all fun & games when you're in power, the problem is when you're on the receiving end.

Your memory is incredibly short - remember it is the Democrats that abused power, not Republicans.

The ACA passage? Some political manoeuvring, but not abuse of power. In fact, if it weren't for the fairly extraordinary policy of "no GOP Senator is allowed to vote yes" it would have garnered quite a few GOP votes, it was afterall a GOP concept.

Why is it so darn hard for the FBI to describe when and why they started their Trump Investigation?

It's not hard, Carter Page blabbed his mouth to a diplomat about the leaked emails months before anyone knew of leaked emails. That's a good and very valid pretext.

Why did the FBI pay individuals to try and infiltrate/influence the Trump campaign?

When even a top GOP member disagrees with you it means your conspiracy theory

Why were there so many "unmasking" requests from the US Ambassador to the UN in the final year of the Obama administration? (Her defense is that it wasn't her, it was her "staff"!)

I can't recall this one off-hand but I'll look into it, I'm not hopeful that it has any more validity than your other points.

Abuse of power is all fun & games when you're in power, the problem is when you're on the receiving end.

Your memory is incredibly short - remember it is the Democrats that abused power, not Republicans.

Why is it so darn hard for the FBI to describe when and why they started their Trump Investigation?

Why did the FBI pay individuals to try and infiltrate/influence the Trump campaign?

Why were there so many "unmasking" requests from the US Ambassador to the UN in the final year of the Obama administration? (Her defense is that it wasn't her, it was her "staff"!)

Consent Order where the IRS admitted to breaking the law in court.

Not only did they do it, they ADMITTED to it in a court of law. So I am just going to go with the rest of your "debunking" is lies (They are but this was the easiest and indisputable).

Wow, you must live in an echo chamber to be such an expert on these topics without actually knowing about these topics.

And yet mysteriously, the fake information abounded, in fact, the fake information has a long history of existing. A lot of it from Trump, who seems inclined to create accomplishments out of smoke and mirrors. But a lot from the GOP, who still wants to chase after Benghazi and Whitewater.

Would that also be like the claims by the media, DNC and so on that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were just talking about grandkids? Or is it just a case that the FBI lied, the DNC and Obama administration covered it up, and the media directly worked with both to try and bury the story. Enjoy these FOIA documents, because the whole gigantic clusterfuck of collusion, lies, and complete bullshit from the previous administration and DNC is coming home. You can read the summarized version including the emails here if you don't want to read the ACLJ's stuff. Enjoy the part about the Washington Post wanting to bury the story.

That isn't even touching on the stuff uncovered by Judicial Watch.

If you read the article, you would have seen that a mistake was made in the website. It was not a malicious act. Yet, you and other posters act like this is some vast conspiracy against privacy. I can see why you are worried about that, since when Obama and other liberals were in power, they did this constantly. For example, you seem to the whole NSA reading all the email thing. Funny that.

Or, the abuse of IRS to go after political enemies: https://aclj.org/free-speech/o...

The otter convient fact is that the voter roles are being looked into because there are wide scale voter fraud. To get a good handle on which party is doing this, ask yourself, if you are feeling patricianly honest, which party seems to always oppose stricter evidence for voting? If you believe that your party is clean, then why not make sure that people actually live where they say they, actually be a citizen of the country, or hell, even be alive. Only one party works to thwart ANY efforts to clean up the voter rolls, while offering no solutions of their own.

But, I suspect you will not be honest. Nazis never are.

you throw around 'constitutional duty' like that means something. please clarify what you think the relevant passage actually means.

https://aclj.org/supreme-court...

i'd think you'd be a little more worried about executive discretion

http://www.economist.com/blogs...

i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws. vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.

i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers. i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that... not a single person, and not 9 unelected life-time appointments. the men and women who have to go back to THE PEOPLE every two years and make the case that they're not fucking up, and sometimes those fuckers in the senate.

Trespassing (yes, the venue was private property and the protesters/goons were there under false pretences and refused to leave when told), and then rioting to prevent Trump from being heard is not "free speech", it's depriving someone else of their free-speech and in this case, a federal crime (section C-1B, Trump is protected by Secret Service)

How would you react if people came to an event you were hosting and started shouting you down and rioting and then claimed it was all under their "free speech".

Besides, I thought you Trumpophobes didn't believe in free speech anyway. Or is that only when it's someone else's speech that you don't like?

There are numerous protections enshrined in federal law that prohibit an employer from taking discriminatory action against an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs.

I wonder what happens when an employer claims that to be prohibited from taking such actions would be in violation of its own religious beliefs.

"Sorry, Jim, as an atheist corporation, we don't believe that your desire to attend religious services takes precedence over our business needs; in fact, it is this company's personal belief that attending religious services is detrimental to your well-being, as well as that of the company. If you don't come in on Sunday, don't bother showing up on Monday."

Labor Unions . Non members benefit from collective bargaining agreements and enjoy the same work conditions as members (usually?) so unions now have "Agency Fees" that cost less than dues yet are required from employees. Many. non members object to the political spending and lobbying efforts, or are on the health plan of a spouse of parent yet still have to pay. http://aclj.org/workplace-righ...

Sign the petition to abolish the IRS:

http://aclj.org/us-constitution/abolish-the-irs

I would call your attention to the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon, specifically Article II, Section 1. For further information, please see the letter from Rep. Darrell Issa (Admittedly, a bit a a partisan firebrand) to Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the head of this controversy dated 27 March, 2011. I would particularly call your attention to the list of demands that begin on page 2.

It seems possible that this is all what Ms. Lerner is claiming, the actions of a few low level employees seeking a way to streamline an admittedly arduous process, but if so, it demonstrates a level of political tone deafness so high as to boggle the mind.

The upshot is that something here stinks. Particularly given that President Obama has made jokes about auditing those he is unhappy with. This needs to be investigated, and investigated NOW.

start walking around outside with a bag over their head to avoid security cameras capturing images of them. Yet 'face recognition allows for covert, remote and mass capture and identification of images — and the photos that may

You mean like the Muzzies do

Even with the Atheists Communists Liberals Union doing this, I still don't trust them.

Here is why.

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked officials in a Detroit suburb to reject a proposal that would require businesses with foreign language signs to add English translations.

"We write to strongly urge you to abandon the measure as unconstitutional, anti-immigrant and unnecessary," the ACLU wrote to the city Thursday in a letter that was also signed by officials with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Michigan and Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development Inc.

In May, Sterling Heights, Mich., Councilwoman Barbara Ziarko asked the city's attorney to prepare an ordinance requiring businesses with foreign language signs to have identifiers such as "bakery" included, the Detroit News reports.

Fire Chief John Childs supported the move, arguing that people passing by the site of a fire or other emergency could inform dispatchers about the location more easily if they could read the signs.

He maintained that the issue has nothing to do with race.

"This is about response time," he said.

The city issued a statement Thursday defending the proposed ordinance.

"Any assertion that the city's public safety effort is intended as a restriction on the expression of cultural diversity is categorically denied," the statement said.

Valedictorian suing over speech cut short

When the school district unplugged the microphone of a Foothill High School valedictorian during her graduation speech, it flipped on the switch for a legal battle now headed to federal court.

Brittany McComb was cut off after she started speaking about the importance of religion in her life. Now, attorneys for the Rutherford Institute have filed a lawsuit in defense of the teen and free speech.

The June graduation speech has now turned into a legal fight over free speech. The Rutherford Institute claims McComb's First Amendment rights were violated.

Rutherford president John Whitehead calls this a clear cut case of censorship, but the ACLU disagrees and says Brittany tried to turn her podium into a pulpit violating separation of church and state.

"We're confident we're on the right side of this issue and we're confident when the dust settles we will prevail in this suit," said Whitehead.

Gary Peck of the ACLU says during a school sponsored event like a graduation, free speech rights are limited. And he says, in this case, Brittany crossed the line with her religious references. "This is about the ACLU objecting to students who use the occasion of their valedictory speeches to proselytize and that's not appropriate."

The ACLU will be taking legal measures to oppose this lawsuit. News 3 also talked with a rep from the school district but we were told they can't say anything about the suit because they haven't seen it yet.

A spokesperson says The Rutherford Institute isn't seeking any specific damages on behalf of Brittany.

ACLJ This Week - ACLU Attacks War Memorial

ACLU Files Lawsuit To Protect Voter Fraud In Missouri

Quote:
The lawsuit, filed Monday in Cole County Circuit Court, the seat of state government, claims the law violates a state constitutional provision against imposing costs on local governments without providing state funding, commonly referred to as the Hanthingy amendment. It seeks a permanent injunction blocking the law from being enforced and class-action status.

"Our overall concern is that the new law is going to leave people out who want to vote, who deserve to vote and who are qualified to vote," Anthony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, said in a written statement.

The voter ID's are free, they are sending out mobile distributors, and allowing people who don't get them to cast provisional ballots. Laziness on the part of some

But, you have to admit that there is an anti-Christian bias in the cases that the ACLU takes.

The ACLU always jumps on any case that involves Christianity being taught or endorses in school but they NEVER do this when a school blatantly endorses Islam or other religions. In fact, it takes organizations like the ACLJ to do the job that the ACLU hypocritically claims they are doing.

a) Public schools are generally run by local governments, which are under state control. The First Amendment to the federal constitution does not apply to state governments.

Wrong. Federal laws supercede state laws, and state laws in turn supercede local/municipal laws.

Constitutional laws -- such as the 1st Amendment -- supercede Federal law. We are, after all, a "Constitutional Republic."

Hence, the 1st Amendment applies to all levels of government, from the Federal level on down.

This is basic Civics/Government stuff...

b) Even if it did, the guarentee of freedom of speech does not mean that the government has to sponsor that speech.

Correct.

Indeed, any sponsorship of the government necessarily means that taxpayer money is used to promote the speech, and although such sponsorship happens regularly enough (such as in California, where a the state pension plan agency was working to oppose President Bush's attempts to partially privatize Social Security, or the recent scandal surrounding the promoter of the "No Child Left Behind Act", or various works put out by the ONDCP), it's almost invariably condemned as a waste of taxpayer money and a sign of overbearing government abuse of power (as if governments abusing their power were uncommon).

c) Even if it did, minors do not have the full range of legal rights, just as they don't have the full range of legal responsibility.

Incorrect. 2 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment rights of minors, saying in the majority opinion "minors enjoy the protection of the First Amendment"

Thank you. I enjoy thoughtful discussion.

The argument of "turning the dial" can be compared to a guest coming into my home, lighting up a cigarette, and then when I nicely ask them to put it out because I don't want to damage the health of my lungs they then flippantly say "leave the room". As soon as I start to breathe the cigarette smoke the damage is done. Yes, I can leave the room but damage has already been done and they didn't care at all about it.

It's the same thing with "turning the dial". I've already been exposed to offensive material -- the damage is already done.

Howard Stern or anybody can do whatever they want in private and deal with private consequences. But when they do things in public then they have to face good or bad public consequences. The other poster who talked about the responsibilities of freedom said it very nicely. And the poster who said that the consequence for profanity in his home was being punched -- that made me laugh. :)

Freedom is absolutely necesary and is a tool -- a tool towards the goals of making the best or smartest possible choices. Freedom is not the goal -- it's a tool to reach the goal. When freedom (or diversity) ceases to become a tool and instead becomes a goal then it's easy to forget about the responsiblities of freedom.

And yes, we should all be allowed space to make mistakes and learn along the way. Where there are disagreements we should work together and patiently try to persuade one another until we come to a common understanding.

That doesn't overshadow the fact that the consequences of obscenity pollution are just as real as the consequences of environmental pollution. Please study it at the previous link that I included above and search for others.

Thanks for listening, I'm leaving for Christmas vacation now. :)
Happy Holidays!

Roger

P.S. I'm independent - unaffiliated with a party.
Check out the ACLJ as well as the IJ

For all your bashing of Michael, maybe if you had done your own google search you would have found out that VOLUNTARY school prayer IS LEGAL. Here is a short summary from the ACLU

IS IT EVER OK TO PRAY IN SCHOOL? Sure. Individual students have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom instruction or other educational activities -- or try to force others to pray along with them. If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help.

The Supreme court in Good News Club v. Milford Central School upheld an after hours bible study that was held at a public school (they did pray during bible study).

The Supreme Court stated in Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 120 S.Ct. 2266 (2000). confirmed, "nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the schoolday."

For all your bashing of Michael, maybe if you had done your own google search you would have found out that VOLUNTARY school prayer IS LEGAL. Here is a short summary from the ACLU

IS IT EVER OK TO PRAY IN SCHOOL? Sure. Individual students have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom instruction or other educational activities -- or try to force others to pray along with them. If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help.

The Supreme court in Good News Club v. Milford Central School upheld an after hours bible study that was held at a public school (they did pray during bible study).

The Supreme Court stated in Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 120 S.Ct. 2266 (2000). confirmed, "nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the schoolday."

(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The ACLU is fighting to make child pornography legal.

(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The ACLU is fighting to make child pornography legal.

AFAIK, Germany and France do not have restrictions on anti-abortion speech. Thats only the United States.

Heck, bring it up with the ACLJ, too. They've got good lawyers.

I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.

Personally, I'd be more inclined toward the American Center for Law and Justice than the ACLU.