Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Creates Map of US "Constitution-Free Zone"
trackpick points out a recent ACLU initiative to publicize a recent expansion of authority claimed by the Border Patrol to stop and search individuals up to 100 miles from any US border. They have created a map of what they call the US Constitution-Free Zone. "Using data provided by the US Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders. The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This 'Constitution-Free Zone' includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.'"
Wouldn't it be easier to make a "Constitution Applies" zone?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I like that Michigan is one of the few elite states that is entirely within the constitution free zone. WOOO go us!
Is she illin with the panicillin?
Is she reelin in the panicillin?
Is it feelin with the panicillin?
Are you steelin in the panacillin?
Panka Panka
Is she liable no suitifiable no not on trial but so suitifiable
Is she viable no suitifiable pliable style is so suitifiable
so reliable no suitifiable shes not on file but so suitifiable
im on the dial its so suitifiable its like im liable but more suitifiable
...the "Constitution-Lite Zone"
Airports?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Gee... I thought the whole country was a Constitution-Free zone at this point. I guess that the remaining third of the country is in a Limited-Constitution zone.
The longer that I dwell on his words, the more relevant this quote (falsely attributed to Benjamin Franklin) is to me: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
You don't need to tell me that Washington D.C. is within 100 miles of the coast to prove it's a Constitution-Free Zone.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
The large interior part looks just like Palin's map of "Real America".
With the recent kidnapping of a 6yo boy 300 miles from the mexican border, I think they need to pull that southern boundry up a few hundred miles. You guys keep thinking of it that way, while the rest of us consider this as the zone most threatened, and thankfully the most guarded.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
The constitution applies in the following zones:
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Just trying to figure out if this is some political message. (Of course it is). But like, what are they really trying to say?
a. Conservatives are better because they typically lax border patrols because really they love cheap labor.
b. Conservatives are worse because under Bush the average American who isn't illegal has been screwed over by laws like these.
I could probably read tfa, but that wouldn't be any fun when I can just draw so many conclusions from a headline list 90 of the population does anyway.
This may be off topic but on that map, the scaling is way off. The highlighted border is much thicker than 100 miles.
It's the only way to make Real America (TM) safe from the liberal terrorists inhabiting the border regions!
That is all.
If you've got nothing to hide then this is not a problem!
(Flame suit ready, even though my tongue is boring a hole in my cheek.)
I see they've drawn a map of the new Reconstituted United States which will emerge after federal destruction of rights prompts the coming revolution.
Make out your wills and break-out the ham radios and home made weapons boys.....oh, don't forget the tin foil helmets.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
This and other stories along a similar path is the main reason that I haven't joined the US military yet. As a soldier, I would have to swear an oath to defend the constitution. How can I take that oath if my own government won't respect what it says? I want to join, but not if that means helping to destroy that which my fore-fathers fought to protect.
What happens if I'm 50 miles away from the border and I tell some nosy Border Patrol agent to get stuffed, I'm under no obligation to answer his questions. If he was stupid enough to make an issue of it, what could he charge me with? I legally don't have to talk to my state and local police, other than to identify myself.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Here in Denmark, we have this thing called visitation zones. In visitation zones, the police are allowed to search and question you without cause.
The three biggest cities in Denmark; Copenhagen, Odense and Ã...rhus are all visitaion zones and have been for some while now, and we have no idea when this will stop.
Still is against our constitution, but apparently that dosent matter.
inland. They must have been tipped off by someone on the inside that this was going down.
Which "US land or coastal border" is Milwaukee 100 miles from? Chicago?
Do yourself a favour: GET THE FUCK OUT NOW.
The country's been insolvent since January.
It's not run under the rule of law as there is no guarantee of habeus corpus.
It invaded another country, unprovoked.
One election was a failure.
And another seems to have been stolen.
and after all of this an eloquent thoughtful (and by world standards) centrist is actually facing significant opposition from a third rate pilot and POW turned right wing hack and his "prom queen" veep choice? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
If you have any sense, get out now, before the border closes, and the country sinks into a blackhole of debt, financial ruin, infrastructural collapse, and fascist tail chasing. Seriously. Just pack your bags and go. If you'e reading this site, it is likely you have skillsets that are desirable all over the world.
And if you think Obama's gonna fix it all, you're fucking dreaming.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I'm strongly in favor of groups that protect individuals' rights, even ones as over-the-top as the ACLU.
"Constitution-Free Zone?" So the 4th amendment is the entire Constitution? Taking the rhetoric a bit far, aren't we, friends?
Don't worry, I still love you, and next year's check is still coming.
'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
I grew up in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and have been through border patrol checkpoints literally hundreds of times. Since I'm white, they always just look in my car (looking for anyone that "looks" illegal, meaning brown people), and wave me on. However, I often see cars pulled over to the side being searched, presumably for drugs.
The ACLU claims that the Border Patrol regularly exceeds its authority in these checkpoints to look for things other than illegal immigrants or contraband from across the border, and they are absolutely right. It is interesting to note that occasionally one of these border patrol stations will have a sign up telling you what they've accomplished lately. It's never about how many illegal aliens they've captured, but rather how many pounds of narcotics they've confiscated. They claim the right to search your car because you are near the border, and any contraband they find is assumed to have been smuggled across the border, whether it actually was or not.
To people that have grown up around the Mexican border, it's no surprise that the border patrol can do pretty much whatever they want in these zones. They will pull you aside at these checkpoints for anything that looks suspicious, whether it's related to border security or not, especially if you are Hispanic.
These checkpoints have always been unsettling to me. While I understand that the Border Patrol needs to be able to operate at least to some degree within our borders in order to protect the border, it is ridiculous that I have to pass through checkpoints just to get from one city in America to another city in America, and that American citizens who happen to be of Hispanic descent are treated as criminals while traveling entirely within the United States just because of their skin color.
The checkpoint I've been through the most is just north of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and a good 60 miles away from the border. In order to go from Las Cruces (the second largest city in New Mexico) to points north (including Albuquerque, the largest city in New Mexico), you have to pass through this checkpoint. This means that thousands of people every day, most of whom are residents of the state of New Mexico and were not in Mexico at any point in the recent past, get to be harassed by the Border Patrol just because they want to travel within their own state.
What I'd like to see is an analysis of what percentage of the original 13 colonies is in the Constitution-free zone? Just eyeballing it looks like around 80%.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I'm glad the "zone" is within the US - when I first read the posting, I thought they want to check people outside of the border - within Canada / Mexico ...
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
More than 100 miles inside the border.
Let's hope it doesn't get any smaller.
that are not the real America. Only in pro-America America does the Constitution apply. The rest of America hates America.
... the whole US is a Constitution-free zone.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
we have no idea when this will stop.
It wont
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Who tagged this suckithawaii?
I nearly choked laughing. Funniest thing I've read all afternoon. I just heard it like Sean Connery would of read it (ala SNL skit of Jeopardy).
I fixed the map to make it more accurate. here it is
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
You want to support the Constitution? Start with supporting 2nd Ammendment.
Oh please. I'll acknowledge that you have the right to own guns for self protection and for hunting. But I'm tired of hearing the claim that private guns somehow safeguard our civil rights. Quite the opposite. As any Iraqi will tell you, rights that are enforced by private thuggery only deliver rights to those with the most thugs.
Especially absurd is the recurring theory that private guns prevent the national government from becoming dictatorship. Unless you're one of those fringe idiots who advocates private ownership of nukes and other WMDs, the idea of a some plucky band of guerillas restoring democracy is pure fantasy.
Lake Michigan is entirely within the bounds of the US. Chicago is nowhere near the border.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Who will stop the Bush administration's never ending destruction of the Constitution.
Am I trolling? Why, yes I am.
if heard of the law of accelerating returns... is there a law of accelerating totalitarianism too?
About 10 persons will be out of the zone in vermont :P
a guy refused the border patrol access to his trunk - after passing successfully through the border 50 miles ago. They ordered him to sit down on a bench while they had the dogs sniff. The border patrol then opened the trunk because "the dogs smelled something." I would like to point out that the police will cue a dog to "go crazy" so that they can have "cause" to violate your rights. The cops will lie upwards and downwards in court. Proving that they perjured themselves, though, is problematic because the cuing is so subtle that tape doesn't catch it.
WTF? Why not just say 200 miles and grab more cities that have nothing to do with 'the border'.
100 miles is just stupid.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The government does not abridge your rights by failing to help you do X, they do abridge your rights by doing Y to you.
Make sense?
But if they make the rules to do X unreasonable, they are abridging.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
when they start defending my other Constitutional rights. What's the ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment or the 10th Amendment, for example? Yeah, I thought so. Face it, they're a far left-wing organization with no concern for the Constitution except when it suits their purposes.
Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.
Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote: "I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Earl Browder, the general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States, admitted that the ACLU served as a "transmission belt" for the party. Baldwin agreed, claiming, "I don't regret being a part of the communist tactic which increased the effectiveness of a good cause."
...the ACLU gets it right.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Claiming that something is "implicit" is the way that Supreme Court usually rules that a right is not a right, even though the COTUS says that it is a right. For example, it was considered "implicit" in the Kelo v. New London ruling that simply generating more tax revenue was a public use of land, and thus any seizure of land that could generate more revenue in someone else's hands was a public use of that land that allowed eminent domain.
I happen to think that it's a great idea to guarantee legal counsel. However, the fact of the matter remains that it is not objectively required in order to provide due process of law. The main reason it's required today is that we have an overly complex legal code that sometimes Windows' source code look lightweight and elegant, and juries that often uncritically accept whatever bullshit a prosecutor tries to feed them. Ain't much use for a public defender when you have juries that believe stuff like the argument one prosecutor made in a case I read where he said that an auto mechanic booked a flight from one end of the state to the other, shot his ex-wife and snuck back home to have dinner with his girlfriend. Oh, and he had no flight record either to prove his "theory."
We're often much better off when the judiciary **advices** that something is implicit, than when the judiciary actually acts on that. Too often that's just the judges legislating from the bench.
For advocating an open border. If the American civil liberties union spent their time defending the liberties of Americans instead of illegal immigrants, there would not be an excuse to extend border enforcement halfway into neighboring states.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The area I live in is under the jurisdiction of EIGHT different entities. Border Patrol, State patrol, City police, INS, FBI, etc. primarily because of geographics.
It is not one agency that I worry about. It is the entire spectrum of public servants whose shadow I fall under that concerns me.
Think about it.
If the policies, their stated purpose, and, more importantly, the powers bestowed on those eight entities to achieve their stated purpose, do not allow ONE agency to perform the questioning or search of someone, I am QUITE sure some other agency has powers that DO. It is a matter of a phone call. And you all know in this day and age just how "important" sharing information amongst agencies is.
It really is NO different then one agency having ALL of these powers.
It reminds me of the idea that if you make enough laws, everyone will be subject to arrest.
Constitution free zone? After Hibel vs Nevada, police officers can stop you anywhere they want for any reason and arrest you if you don't produce ID according to the Supreme Court. I fail to see how the border patrol hunting for illegal aliens within 100 miles of the border is somehow anywhere near as bad as that.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Instead of the phrase " violent mob " I believe the US Constitution uses the phrase ..." ... well regulated militia..." . What a difference a world_view makes, eh hoser. See the difference ? Or are you a neo_Stalinist thug armed with THE LAW !
I am tired of hearing how Jose Illegal had his constitutional rights violated. He has no rights under the constitution. He is not a citizen. I can guarantee you that if you are crossing the border, are a citizen of the U.S. and are not doing anything illegal, you will never have a problem. Don't meet those two small criteria? Tough.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
"Oh please". Wow, what an argument...
Not to see unnecessary patterns, but it's interesting how 21 (60%) of those are solid blue states in this election (as of Wed's polls at least), 6 (17%) are swing states and only 8 (23%) are red states. Hmmm... nothing suspicious there... the "real" America is safe.
My mental definition of "border" means where the US abuts another country. While I agree with the ACLU's idea, shading in all three coasts seems like gilding the lily, or do the new Border Patrol rules apply to coastlines as well? If not, the numbers quoted are SUBSTANTIALLY lower.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
A friend of mine that I go to law school with works for the Border Patrol here in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. During class a few weeks ago, we were talking about these administrative stops, and he was more than willing to give us the entire scoop. Based on what an actual border patrol agent has told me, most of the ACLU's arguments on this page are absolute crap.
First off, the Border Patrol typically only stops buses, and not just any bus, specific bus lines. There are a number of bus companies, operating out of Houston, that cater specifically to illegal immigrants; the border patrol is well aware of this (El Expresso is the one that immediately comes to mind). There are specific checkpoints in place along the routes, where the border patrol makes a stop of these buses, and they run citizenship checks. About once every 30-50 stops, they make an arrest - a SINGLE arrest.
Once a bus is checked, it is NOT checked again, as the courts have forced the border patrol to put in place a system as to not cause a burden to these bus companies and the people on them.
In short - the only people really being stopped by the border patrol are buses that they know cater to illegal immigrants. Ordinary citizens, as the ACLU claims, are not being stopped and harassed by border patrol agents - its simply not happening.
I think Chicago is more than 100 miles from the Canadian border
- There are a large number of Mexican criminals (Mexican mafia, drug gang members, murderers, rapists, etc) who have slipped into the US to avoid prosecution in Mexico.
- Border checkpoints work both ways. We're responsible for our criminals slipping into Mexico trying to avoid prosecution too.
- The US has a large problem with drug importers on every border.
- What do YOU propose law enforcement officials do if they conduct a perfectly legal stop to verify documentation, and there is reasonable cause during the stop to suspect that other laws are being broken? Remember, under the law as decided by the Supreme Court, all that is required is reasonable suspicion.
Slashdot story should be reworded to read: "American Criminal Liberties Union Upset Over Nothing Again."
Give me a break! The ACLU is only about destroying the Constitution and the US because it currently staffed by 1960s retreads (communist sympathizers, socialists, and oddly enough, Bob Barr). Be more concerned about 0bama's "Truth Squads" in Missouri and his Civilian Corps.
If you live in Los Angeles or San Diego, you'd understand. I am a very liberal person, but I do welcome border patrol officers searching and arresting gang members that are illegal in this country. Border patrol officers identify gang members, just as I or anyone else can that lives in the LA or SD area. Local Police enforcement are arresting 'legal' gang members. Gang members are a big problem in this country, unless you live in Minnesota or Montana.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Seriosly, they couldn't of left of some of the major metro areas. Who has ever heard of the following
Shelby, Montana
Sierra Vista, Arizona
Las Cruces, New Mexico
The map loses some of its punch with 150 little dots pointing out every cow town within 100 miles of the borders.
Cue the "but me and my daddy live in Las Cruces you insensitive clod" comments.
Is a dead ACLU representative... :-)
A better name would be the AACLU Anti American...
I jest of course...
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
OMG, I just discovered that Highway Patrol Officers can make arrests and enforce the law even when they are not on a highway! Call the ACLU!
Am I the only one who is scheduling trips to the firing range much more frequently?
Andy Out!
The ACLU knows nothing about the Constitution anyway. They always try to silence anyone who dares to believe in a God, regardless of the Constitutional right to speak freely about your religion (First Ammendment, 'no law prohibiting the expression thereof'). Also, John Adams himself said the Constitution only applies to 'a moral and religious people,' something the ACLU doesn't understand. They're always trying to mess with our freedoms and our rights, and I think its time we stood up to them. Is it not written that 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness'?
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
DISCLAIMER: I am posting from Kandahar City, Afghanistan, where I am stationed for the next little while.
The example you cite - the American Revolution - hasn't been applicable to the real world since the last years of the American Civil War.
The time period from the early 1700s to the late 1800s was dominated by the smoothbore, muzzle-loading musket, and its big brother, the smoothbore, muzzle-loading, solid-shot cannon (of which there were few in the Colonies)
An American Rebel, armed with a flintlock Kentucky Rifle, carried a weapon that was the technological equal of his British Regular Army counterpart. In some ways (range and accuracy) it was superior; in others (rate of fire) inferior. Employed properly, entirely comparable.
The success of armies in this era was largely a function of discipline, leadership, and logistics. If you had a cause sufficient to unite men in common purpose, leaders with enough tactical acumen to employ them, and paid attention to the problems of supply, it was entirely possible to go head to head with a national, professional, regular army and win outright on the battlefield - especially if your "professional" opponent was lacking in one of these vital areas.
That is no longer the case. No militia is capable of withstanding the kind of destructive force a modern combat team (a company of mechanized infantry, a troop of tanks, and two artillery pieces) is capable of putting out.
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan die - in large numbers - any time they try to go toe-to-toe with modern combat forces. It's no contest; so hopelessly lopsided that it's almost pathetic.
The only weapon that is at all effective is the Improvised Explosive Device (basically a really big land mine) but the IED is not a decisive weapon; it is a harassment tactic, not a war-winner.
The insurgent plays off our unwillingness to inflict civillian casulties. If we take fire from a village, it is entirely within our combat power to stop the entire village flat (in seconds!) to get him. We choose not to for very good reasons.
But if a government WERE willing to inflict those kinds of casulties (and please note that I am NOT advocating such a course of action) any would-be rebels would find themselves in a world of hurt very quickly. The idea that a self-organized citizen militia could take on and defeat the US Army, Navy, and Air Force is simply laughable.
Yes, the North Vietnamese pulled it off, but that was because the will to do what was necessary to win wasn't there. Within the boundaries of the United States proper, however, it is safe to say that will exists, given that the army that has killed more Americans than all other armies in all other American wars *combined* is the US Army. Ask Lincoln and Grant if they had the will to do what was necessary to win. or better yet, ask Lee.
Your Second Amendment is nice in theory. In practice, it is a paper tiger.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Exercise of the right to counsel, unless you waive it, is because the situation of a criminal prosecution has been forced upon you, invoking that right. Thus the government must provide counsel or drop the case, because to continue without defense counsel would be unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment has no such forced situation in it. It is a right that cannot (supposedly) be infringed, the exercise of which is your choice.
Ah, so this is how they're going to do it. I saw something like this coming - and warned my friends and relatives about it, too - when the government suddenly started caring about illegal immigration. I've always contended that it was not illegal immigration, but "illegal" emigration that walls and border patrol agents will eventually be used to police. A wall can be used both to keep out and to keep in as well, and this simple fact has passed by the notice of many when discussing the immigration issue. It is a frightening thought, but not one that frightens me personally to inactivity.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
It's pretty scary how a large percentage of the "Blue Counties" from the 2004 election (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymapredbluelarge.png) are inside the "constitution free zone".
Takes some balls to pull this IMHO...but, does show if you know your rights, you don't have to put up with this shit. Take a look at some of his videos...some are really interesting about how they try to get him to do stuff and answer questions they really have no authority to do. It is obvious because through all these stops....they finally pass him through.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As our economy continues to tank we are getting fewer and fewer immigrents anyway.
I think everyone who is against immigration should thank Mr. Bush for his brilliant tactics in stopping immigration to our country by making it not worth the hassle
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
Does not mean that the rest of the country is under the constitution. Check with the prez on that. By the way, when you ask him, you will disappear...
Hey, Who was I talking to. Where did he go?
Who, me? No, officer, I never met the guy...
Taxi!!!
wake up and hold your nose
> But what is "the border"?
> According to the government, it
> is a 100-mile wide strip that
> wraps around the "external boundary"
> of the United States.
You'd think that a respectable organization like the ACLU could at least reference a specific law or executive order, or something in support of this, rather than just asserting that "the government" says so.
Anybody know WTF they're talking about here?
- Do you think the government has a real, and appropriate, interest in knowing who and what is coming in and out of the country?
- If so, why is it inappropriate to check at the borders (or at the nearest available transit points) that those crossing have their citizenship documentation or passport and visa documentation, as they are required to carry by law for all cross-border travel?
Yes, I want to live in a country where the laws are enforced. Being "randomly" stopped on the street in the middle of the day to check that I have ID papers on me? That is inappropriate. Being checked for my papers when I am doing something for which papers are required, such as traveling between two countries, is not.
And also may I point out: You are required by law in every state to carry your drivers' license, automobile registration and proof of insurance papers, if you are driving a vehicle (car, truck, minivan, etc). When such vehicles are crossing the border, the US government has a real and important interest in doublechecking that the driver is not either (a) entering or (b) leaving the country with a STOLEN vehicle.
Borodin: Do you think they will let me live in Montana?
Ramius: I would think they'll let you live wherever you want.
Borodin: [snip]...and I will have a pick-up truck, or umm... possibly even...a recreational vehicle, and drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Ramius: Oh yes.
Borodin: No papers?
Ramius: No papers. State-to-state.
About once every 30-50 stops, they make an arrest - a SINGLE arrest.
An average charter bus holds 50 people. So, you're saying that between 1500 and 2500 citizens are being illegally detained (see 4th Amendment) to achieve a single actionable arrest?
That's incredibly tragic, and exactly the opposite of how The Land of the Free is supposed to work. Thanks for proving the point.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The U.S. has the same right to decide who enters her borders as any other sovereign nation. In fact, any sovereign nation that values law and order has an obligation to regulate entry. I wish the same people who are crying about the U.S.'s border stance would take a look at just how tightly Mexico controls her southern border.
Chicago does not lie within 100 air miles of a border of the USA. The Great Lakes are well-defined US and Canadian territory, and their shoreline does not define a US boundary, as no part of them lies in international waters. Chicago lies on Lake Michigan, which lies entirely within the territory of the USA.
One of my cop buddies was talking about how big of an issue this is in the US. It ends up that the cops know that the INS is going to do *nothing* about the illegals, but they will go ahead and arrest them for drunk driving. They spend the night or two in jail, and since they don't technically "exist" in the US, they are released from jail without trial and are free to go. Isn't it wonderful how the illegals have more freedom than the citizens?
I can make maps where i just highlight the edge of a shape and post it on the web too.
.. the real and not real parts of America that one of the campaigns keeps talking about.
I think we have a Ron Paul supporter.
Seriously though... you want to push for drug legalization, that's fine. But you CAN NOT tell me that drug gangs who commit all sorts of crimes (including kidnap and murder) and deliberately get people hooked on these things are somehow simply practicing "civil disobedience" by "not following the law."
There's a big difference between a 75-year-old granny with cancer who grows a couple marijuana plants so she can puff on the leaves and bake marijuana-butter brownies to keep her appetite up, and organized groups that engage in rape, murder, racketeering, smuggling, and turf wars with a side order of drug sales.
And you haven't addressed the damage caused by wage depression, theft of services, and damage to the school system caused by illegal immigration and human smuggling (which gets back to the rape/prostitution rings run by the gangs too) either.
Trade and communications were easy from the beginning. The climate was moderated by large bodies of water.
A friend of my mother was driving out to a nursery on the Olympic Peninsula in Western Washington and was stopped at a border patrol checkpoint before the Hood Canal floating bridge.
Everything would have been fine except for the fact that she was driving a van with a couple of university exchange students (not sure of their nationality) and they did not have their student visas with them.
Border patrol freaked out and started harassing my mothers friend, saying that they would arrest her for carrying "illegals" and other such non-sense.
Eventually they let them go on their way, but the experience, to say the least, was fairly traumatic. No one expects to be randomly checked inside their own borders and to be harassed by federal agents.
There have been other instances where border patrol has set up check points in the middle of small towns here and forced checks on anyone passing them.
This is not only attack on our personal rights, but the rights of the state as well. Federal agents should not be allowed to set up check points beyond the immediate border.
One has to take their claims with a huge grain of salt.
Reminds me of the Asimov short story where they expose a Nazi spy because he's the only one who knows the full lyrics. =)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Forgive my naivety, but isn't the Constitution the document that defines the role of President, Vice President etc?
Therefore in these so-called Constitution-Free Zones, Bush isn't the President, federal law doesn't apply and it's anarchy all round, right?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Do you really want to live in a place where there's such a thing as "a perfectly legal stop to verify documentation"? That's not the America I grew up in.
Currently in New York City it is law that cops can stop you and search "backpacks or other large containers". The Second Amendment for years has only been available to the rich, well connected, or good-old-boy (former cops). The First Amendment can be restricted at the pleasure of politicians to avoid uncomfortable press in cities across America since the invention of the "First Amendment Zone"
Maybe that's what Governor Palin means when she says small towns are more pro-America, she means they are still protected by the Constitution.
Ugh ugh ugh. I know about this, as I'm a pretty avid civil liberties follower, but I'm still depressed.
I was in Europe recently, and in Austria they had a random passport control checkpoint set up. They thought us suspicious (tourist plates on a new car) and so pulled me and my bf over to ask us a bunch of random questions, clearly just checking reactions. After it was all done (10-15 minutes) and we left I remember thinking, man, it's so easy in Europe to forget that we do have at least some stuff better in the US.
Oh wait, nevermind. What supposedly makes us so fucking great again?
I thought it was Patrick Swayze who delivered the victory to the American militias by using guerrilla warfare.
> Lake Michigan is entirely within the bounds of the US. Chicago is nowhere near the border.
You appear to be confusing law with common sense. It can still count as a "coast" just like tomatoes are "vegetables."
I have a few things to say about this. First this is being blown all out of proportion, anyone who has ever driven past on of these checkpoints knows that they wave %95 percent of the traffic right through no big deal, and I have never ever been stopped for someone asking for my papers. Nevertheless I do see the potential for abuse with this program
This is the wrong solution to the illegal immigrant invasion that we have witnessed over the past few decades. It is attacking the symptoms of the problem while ignoring the real cause. That cause is simply this, given all the dangers of crossing the border and getting caught it is still on average a profitable enough risk to take and for that reason many take it (i would too if i were in their situation) The proper way to fight this is to make it not profitable, you do that by going after employers of illegal immigrants and fining and jailing them, all they need to do is make a couple if big examples and everyone else will fall in line. Take away the profit and the people will go somewhere else on their own.
But why should we turn them away? (i know this is what your wondering) Imagine this, you build a house an a peice of land that you own (sure maybe you're great great great grandfather kicked some people off that land many years ago, but the fact is they weren't doing much with it anyway) Now someone barges into your home and demands that you make him dinner. what are you gonna do? Me personally, i'd kick him out, if he really wanted what i have so bad then he'd come in with a few friends and some guns and take it from me just like my great great great grandfather did to the original occupants, and if that happened, well then touche to him, but i'll be damned if i'm gonna be guilted into just handing it over
Where as I agree with you, and note you probbly understand this.. I wanted to make it clear, the Constitution does not grant you rights. It places a restriction on only government but grants you nothing.
Tomorrow congress could pass an amendment saying..
"All previous amendments to this document are void, and generous amounts of lube shall not be applied."
You still have rights. Bush could BURN the Constitution and you still have rights.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Aren't the US's maritime borders more than 100 miles out to sea?
Don't worry, we Canadians remember the way to the white house. :-)
Well, duh, you've had censorship for a very long time. Look at your crossed O's!
You know I think Americans should really blog about this, or perhaps start an online petition..
They're going to be in chains before they wake up and realize what is going on..
Its amazing what the general public seems to be able to accept there.
So this should have NO effect on coastal areas not bordered by another country? (east, west coasts)
Besides pissing people off, how will this expansion of powers backfire on the US Government?
Will it fail badly enough for them to do anything about it?
If the answer is no, then my guess is you're pretty well screwed. The US Government seems to no longer care about what its people think. Hell, they don't care what other _countries_ think.
You'll have to think of some other way to convince them to reverse this trend that doesn't depend on them caring about anybody but themselves.
them.....china
Um.. what positions are you referring to there? I'm curious as to what Europeans (and I'm assuming here, based on what you stated, that you are one) think are "far right positions" that Americans would be ignorant of.
Or, if not positions, then the non-position reasons.
It's all well and good to call someone ignorant, but it's really quite a sin to allow that condition to continue if you have access to the very thing that will relieve it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
friend of mine in santa anna cali mixes a little crytstal & mary-j with a lot of chillipepper water and sprays it HPHV all over his house, garden, and car interiors when the 'lice bring their pups to look for the non-licensed med mary-j evidence. usualy 3 dogs get hosed and yelp like mad b4 they give up for a warranted search without the 'probable' clause. i cant stop laffin from hearing the yelps the 'lice put their slave dogs thru. only diff between druggies is the 60 year-old ones got legislators, while younger ones get thrown in jail & exposed to pederasts, jailrape, gang, welfare institution, forced education, incrimination, & deprivtion of life just for a toke to help him relaxe after stressful work in backbreaking labor. meanwhile, "leisure world' gate communities of old retires pay $3k rent and $1k association fee and legislate their immorality to their benefit. someone said to me, only criminals are governed...thanks alot, army legislature.
"Armed populations will not aqueous^B^B^B^B^B^B^B acquiesce until a time of their own choosing..."
that bit was _Really_ distracting, but otherwise it was great...
You helped everyone else but me and the post you responded to. Hell, you wouldn't risk being booted from the American Bar and losing your conflicting $100K guaranteed yearly salary over disputes concerning fundamental principles that didn't originate in your limited jurisdiction but by that confession contract (ticket) that enters a partied agreement in court business as a second-class non-rights bearing unit indebted perpetually to society for services not rendered. Yes, insert coin and plead or we'll take the coin out of your purse and plead on your behath or lock you up for 'contempt' to wasting your own time for my unwillingness to volunteer. You learned not to burn us at the stake, so you lock us all up and expose us to long dur\rations of malnourishment and plague in jails not part of court jurisprudence but preserved in the very contractual crime pleaded by the ticket. We're your turkeys I guess.
That is ridiculous anti-ACLU bullshit.
His post may have been, but your hysterical defense of them was almost as bad. They're a political advocacy group, not angels. And they're very choosy about who's civil liberties they fight for. It's pretty much been ACLU policy that the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist except as the ridiculous "collective right" theory.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"No, it's because that's a fucking ridiculous idea. Unless you have someone actually watching the entire length of that fence 24/7, it may as well not be there. If you've got someone watching the fence 24/7, why do you need the fence?"
That's ridiculous. That's like saying "why build walls for prisons? If guards are watching they aren't going anywhere".
You don't have to be there to watch the fence area. You can watch remotely, and the presence of a physical barrier can give you time to get there before an intruder can get through. This is the basic principle of any kind of secured area.
And I agree with one of the parent posters that most objections to the fence (or of border security of any kind) is usually on some political basis... libertarians and their sovereignty-be-damned "free flow of people" ideas, or other groups that simply don't believe that nations have the right (and duty) to protect their borders.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Javascript of the ACLU map not working? Use this URL. Replace NY with the desired state code:
www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/cfz_map/constitutionfreezone-NY.html
Is that since I both live and work in that zone, I have no Constitutional rights? Bullshit, I'll take those rights and if I have to use a weapon, so be it.
Aarhus? In the middle of Aarstreet?
I don't know about that. Anarchists have learned their lessons from Spain and South Korea and elsewhere: don't hold back on the revolution; don't expect any government to be your friend even if it's in their best interest; and spread the revolution behind enemy lines as soon as possible.
This all adds up to pushing the revolution worldwide, all at once, which is getting easier by the day thanks to improvements in travel and communications technology.
Already the two hundred years' experiment in the domestication of man is being disrupted by these technologies, and the passive and apathetic have started to blink in the harsh light cast by the true nature of the world around them.
In the past ten years, anarchists have seen their ranks swell with new members from the right and left, and all we need is to voices to spread the word, arms to fight back when they come for us, and the ability to recognize the tipping point when the statist bastards won't be able to stop us anymore.
In the future, the individual will be free to enter into any kind of society he desires. There will be (stateless) socialism, there will be (decentralized small-business-based) free markets, there will be a myriad of societal arrangements from one community to the next, as humanity is freed to experiment again, safe in the understanding that all such experiments are voluntary, and each person will come to the defense of their neighbors should the machine begin to rebuild itself in some far-flung corner.
We nearly got out of this prison in the sixteenth century as then-new technology allowed volunteer city militias to fight off professional standing armies. That state of affairs is here once more.
Once we've escaped the cage, we won't get lured in again.
- mantar
Uh, it was the US military who toppled Saddam, not a people's uprising. The current quagmire is due to the power vacuum that the invasion created plus the inadequate planning and manpower of the US military to maintain an occupation. Anyone who has fantasies of US citizens conducting an armed uprising is clearly dreaming. Hell, your police force is as heavily armed as the military of some nations. Your government also has shown that it is not averse to imprisoning and torturing people without trial and illegally spying on US citizens. In other words, you're screwed and there is nothing you can do. One of the posters mentioned that you will need to pass checkpoints to travel towards the border. This to me, brings to mind the defences on the eastern side of the Berlin Wall that were designed to keep people in, not out.
You are equating "revolution" with overthrowing a locally imposed government, but that does not necessarily follow. It is not part of the definition. The American Revolution was in fact a revolution, in that it did not just reject a foreign power, but introduced in its place a completely different form of government (the "revolution" part... what it means).
The American Revolution was indeed a "revolution", in all ways defined by the dictionaries I have consulted.
"Datapoint. Prohibition. Alcohol was illegal. People murdered over the control of the illicit trade. It's not illegal now, and people are not killing each other to supply it. Alcohol cost much more due to the articial scaricity."
It's worse than that. Prohibition is directly responsible for the rise of organized crime in the United States. If we didn't have prohibition, there would have been no need for Elliot Ness to go after these guys because they wouldn't have existed in the first place. Worse, prohibition was so profitable for organized crime that they lasted for decades after prohibition ended.
That's not to say that there were no social costs of alcohol, there were and are. But there were worse social costs associated with prohibition that finally became obvious to everyone. I see drugs largely the same way. It surprises me that we criminalize users of drugs when you think about it. Seems to me we should draw on the experience of nations and cultures that have legalized certain types of drugs and then make laws that have the greatest long-term good for society. Right now, we seem to be moving the wrong direction in regards to being rational about drugs and how best to deal with them in society.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Public desensitization training.
I guess the land of the free in North America is either Canada or Mexico?
And people say that there is no reason for Bush to have been an implicit part of 911... here is just another reason.
Control.
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Still is against our constitution, but apparently that dosent matter.
No it isn't, it was granted by the justice department which can grant this under certain special conditions.
And it can be revoked by the head of police (in the areas), the justice department or by folketinget (national parliament of Denmark) at anytime.
Further more, the areas are well defined and not city wide.
And most importantly you forgot to mention why these zones are here, it is an effort to stop the current violent gang wars (over drugs mainly) and the public outcry of people carrying consealed (illegal) knives and weapons.
Lastly, the people of Denmark are mostly in support of this innitiative.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
Yeah, but you still have a constitutional rights to insult 1B people w/ cartoons.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
It's interesting to see this graphical representation. I have been riding NJ Transit light rail for about 2 years (the entire state of NJ is in this "constitution-free" zone), and every once in a while one of the announcements they play is that NJ Transit reserves the right of "random inspection" of any carry-on bags at any time.
I've never seen them do it, but I've always wondered how I would/should react if I were singled out. Do they *really* have that "right"? What would happen if I refused?
It will. After a violent revolution. They always happen eventually.
I think a good Open Source project would be to make a simple in-car camera system with the option of incremental uploads to store the video, you know, in case something happens to you.
Please pay closer attention to what is happening in your world.
Mr Bush has created and deployed an entire US Army battalion on U.S. soil for use against U.S. citizens for the first time in history. And against 2 U.S. laws forbidding such actions.
The Army says,
"Despite conspiracy theories that this could be a first step toward martial law in the U.S., there won't be tanks on Main Street or active-duty troops putting down demonstrations. That is barred by federal law banning the military from being used on U.S. soil for domestic law enforcement.
Instead, the soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., have been training to back up civilian authorities in providing medical care and dealing with chemical, biological, high explosive or nuclear attack.
BUT,
Not only does this entirely contradict the first Army Times reports, it also egregiously misrepresents to readers the status of US law in regards to this deployment. Yes, there are laws against military policing on US streets -- they are part of both the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1879's Posse Comitatus Act -- but the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gutted them.
Congress restored some limitations on the President's ability to deploy troops to engage in military policing in 2008 -- but President Bush issued a signing statement declaring he did not feel bound by those limitations. He also can direct these troops -- and the National Guard, and Blackwater -- to engage in military policing of civilian populations simply by verbally and unilaterally declaring a national emergency of whatever kind he wishes.
Unfortunately, the US Army spokespeople are parsing their words and misleading us. And, whatever the stated mission is today, the fact remains that military up the chain of command report to the Commander in Chief -- not to Congress or to you and me, and not to the Governors as most of the National Guard do."
Links to look at:
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/09/30/us-army-brigade-deploys-for-homeland-mission/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x394977
http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/index.php?p=1518
http://www.prisonplanet.com/concerns-about-deployment-of-military-on-us-soil-growing-while-mainstream-media-buries-its-head-in-the-sand-naomi-wolf.html
Oh, and Mr Bush has already threatened to declare marshal law ( when the bailout bill stalled, which would allow Bush to deploy that army unit.
Surely you've seen him and the infamous UTube video ?
House members threatened with 'Marshall Law' if they fail to pass bailout Submitted by Kathlyn Stone
Rep. Sherman (D-CA)says Congress threatened with Martial Law if bill not passed. 'The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atmosphere is not justified. Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday, that the sky would fall...there would be martial law in America if we voted no.'
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=71196
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x205488
Watch how all this comes together and unfolds if McBush the 3rd
( McCain ) gets elected.
US Boarder Patrol have more rights than our police and detention officers who are in contact with criminal activity each day. They have access to drug-sniffing dogs, incredibly random search and seizure rights, and unusually free rights to holding without valid cause. I am curious what the founding fathers would have thought of such an imposition of rights of the people of the U.S. The erosion of the bill of rights and the most basic right to liberty seems to take us back in time when the message was "guilty until proven innocent".
The real problem is there are no heros in america to attack those lone check points untill they decide they are not that good of an idea.
Just sissys is all america is made of in the nanny state.
That's the thing. The guy did have drugs in his car. So yeah, Souter's dissent was interesting, but, at the end, the guy was busted for smuggling drugs and well, he was.
This is my sig.
We're trying to keep illegal enemies OUT.
You make this argument as if everyone who comes to the USA is automatically an enemy. Seriously, the worst terrorist threat in the USA is not some external guy sneaking in but domestic.
I mean, yeah, Al Qaeda got lucky with 9/11, but prior to that, all of the terrorism was home grown and will always be that way. Let's run down a list in sheer number of incidents.
Surely, someone who might be on the conservative side of things will recognize that extreme liberals have a track record of terrorism. William Ayers, who I don't understand why he is even alive, is not an illegal alien...and neither was the likes of Malcom X, various black liberation churches, socialists, environmentalists, and so on. Even Teamsters have been known to shoot up the joint every now and then when they go and strike and this whole Card Check legislation is just a way to allow press gangs of unions to -terrorize- people into joining.
On the flip side, we have the likes of Ku Klux Klan, who've killed -way- more Americans than Al Qaeda ever has... it's as high as 20,000 in total. And then, more recently, we have the likes of Timothy McVeigh, who wasn't just trying to blow up a building, but to spark a revolution. And before that we had the abortion clinic bombers, the unibomber, and so on.
Bottom line is that we've got plenty of home grown and domestic terrorism, so much so that, the whole idea that a sealed border equates to public safety is just stupid. IF anything, the more foreigners that come into the country, the saner it gets, as these are just people looking to make a buck and there's nothing wrong and everything American about that.
This is my sig.
...are now the central states. As backwards as some people might think a place like Kansas is, the Constitution is strongly repsected here. As much as we might dislike Fred Phelps, we respect his free speech rights. Even though the governor vetoed a concealed-carry bill, the state congress overturned her veto. In a surprising move afterwards, the governor allowed Class 3 firearms possession (machine guns, explosives, etc.). Criminal trials are speedy (even if the lawyers and juries are stupid). Privacy is generally well respected, the police don't generally bother anyone. Heck, I even openly carried a handgun downtown at night, a policeman walking towards me noticed, simply made eye contact, nodded acknowledgement, and moved on. The first legal brewery to open in Kansas after prohibition was repealed is in the city I live in. Laugh at Kansas for having challenged evolution (by the way, we don't teach creatonism or ID here), but we'll be the ones laughing when your papers are being examined and your car is being rummaged through by a government agent because he decided he would pull over and search all the beige cars that day.
As strange as Kansas may be in some area, it is by far the most free place I've ever been.
True, it was not an "overthrow", per se. But then, the government they were fighting was not local. The government of Britain was not overthrown, but its hold on the colonies was.
The main point is that it was a true Revolution, in that the form of government for the only organized part of the Western Hemisphere was changed to something completely different. If that is not a revolution, I don't know what is. In fact I looked "revolution" up in some dictionaries, and the American Revolution fits all the qualifications.
Our sheriff just raided a library to search for undocumented "workers". How many "workers" are in a city-run library?
It is quite amusing. All law and authority in America stems from the Constitution.
If there is no Constitution in this Zone, then the "Authorities" have no authority, nor any law protecting them. Get your guns out boys, and start killing these lawless "authorities".
Its perfectly legal, because there can be no law in the Constitution-Free Zone that prohibits murder, or killing a cop, or shooting any Border Patrol agent.
But the mass influx of illegal peoples, is not what I describe above...it is more of an invasion, and should be treated as such.
The Romans had a huge problem with barbarians coming into the Roman empire and their response was to ostracize them and try and force them back out. If you look at the historical record, you would find that many of these barbarians wanted originally just to live in peace within Rome and would actually sign up in droves to serve in Roman armies. Centuries of disenfranchisement ultimately lead them to really hate the Romans and so what could have been a manageable and peaceful influx of a large new body of citizens did in fact become real invasions. In 476AD, these barbarians that had fought at Romes side to try and get respect wound up sacking the Roman capital, and a 1000 year dark ages was the result.
People that want to make enemies out of immigrants would be wise not to repeat this lesson, and besides, you see plenty of italian flags in little italy.
This is my sig.
I love how people throw around this word "immigrant" like it applies to people in the country illegally equally as well as those who have gone through the legal process.
I despise the existence of illegal aliens, but not because they are "immigrants". And I do not despise them as people, I'm sure they are very nice and there is no malice in what they do. I despise the hypocrisy they represent. I despise them because of friends of mine who want to be in this country but can't be. My favorite example being a good friend in college who's family mortgaged their house just to send him to America to get a good education. And even when he was here, he was under the most ridiculous restrictions regarding his ability to work while a student, constantly under threat of deportation if he missed a paperwork deadline, constantly paying more and more in application fees, paying four times the tuition I paid for the same education, etc. All knowing that if he didn't get his degree and pay back his family's loan in five years, they'd lose their house. Then I showed him an article where Nancy Pelosi said States should be required to give in-state tuition to "illegal immigrants" and he told me "If that passes, I'm tearing up my Visa. I'll be an "illegal immigrant", too."
With this in mind it really pisses me off to be called anti-immigrant. I *love* immigrants. I love the fact that despite my country's massive faults, there are still people who want to come here--it's one of the few things that still makes me feel good about the USA. People who are willing to put up with all the bullshit regulation surrounding immigration just to get here. People who wait for years and years to do it. I want those people rewarded and held up as examples of what's still good about this country. I want things to be easier for them.
And I think any effort to reward those who thumb their noses at the legal process is spitting in the faces of actual immigrants. If anything, people wanting to reward illegal aliens are anti-immigrant.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
I live in Canada, about 40 miles from the US border. Does that mean that I am in danger? Does it mean that the USA can tresspass on Canadian Soil?
Take advantage of the Second Amendment and don't be afraid to use it on Border Patrol agents.
I charge forward recklessly, leaving chaos in my wake.
The real issue with respect to abortion is what exalted human being gets to make the choice to manage a woman's birth schedule? The fact is, you can't build a free state on the principle of self-determinism, and then turn around and assume metaphysical authority over personal moral choices - least of all in the transcendent arena of human reproduction.
The provision of the Constitution for the protection and welfare of citizens absolutely does not extend to the developing foetus, and in fact it cannot do so without crossing the threshold into coercion. If a woman does not desire to carry a child to term, no one can force her to do so.
The "protection of life" aspect of the Constitution is not a sacrosanct - or overarching - principle. The Constitution is not a Gospel, or a religious document, or a manifesto. It soundly attempts to define individual rights with respect to interference by the mob. Beyond this it doesn't presume. Abortifacients have been around forever, and the founders knew all about it. "Family planning" was not invented in 1971. Perhaps they were just coarse, but none thought it important enough to bring up at any of their meetings.
The Constitution is an imperfect but effective set of principles intended to prevent any influential group from assuming control of the government, or enacting laws that unduly oppress individual culture. Laws banning same-sex marriage, for example, would be prohibited by the Constitution, because there is absolutely no reasonable basis or public interest served by such an abridgment of human freedom.
So... whether we like it or not... every woman remains her own authority in this matter!
-- thinkyhead software and media
So if you hear somebody described on the media in the US as "extremely liberal"...
I know. People don't even know what it means to love the general concept of communal living, they think it's the norm to live a get-some-now life in a dog-eat-dog world, and it just propagates.
In the media they describe conscientious - activist - persons as "animal rights loonies" - "tree huggers" - "nutjobs". In the current media no good deed goes unpunished and the media leads the chorus of the dispossessed.
All of it is fueled by the war propaganda, echoing on. Show any kind of sensitivity and you are weak. Give the benefit of the doubt to your brother and you're taking an awful chance. They like us to be frightened of each other.
When someone calls the media "liberal" it just makes me laugh. It's a dead giveaway that the person is disingenuous, towing some kind of talking point, playing a game. The truly liberal stuff, the deep stuff, is nowhere to be found in the mainstream.
Man, I do think it would be a great world if we were all getting high together instead of everyone only loving the mirror, you know?
-- thinkyhead software and media