But if the Republican Party turns against what it originally believed in, just to win votes isn't already dead?
Lately Cowardly Republican Congressmen are running to the TV and saying hey look. We have to vote for immigration reform or else our party is dead.
But if 12 Million illegals stay here despite breaking the law are they really going to vote Republican???????? Even if Republicans vote to keep them here?
I am betting the Republican Party is dead even if Immigration reform is voted for by Republicans.
But it is not because Conservatives stand against illegal Aliens. Its because Republicans have stopped listening to its conservative base.
First its not because I am racist because I stand against illegal Aliens. I do not care if that illegal Alien is Mexican who crossed a border or a Asian or Middle Easterner who over stayed his Visa.
The reality is that Illegals often tend to break the law more frequently than those that come here legally. Its kind of the same mind set as how a house renter tends to abuse the house harder than a home owner might and how Car Renters tend to trash cars harder in the weekend that they have that car from Enterprise Rent a Car than a car owner would in 5 years.
Just days ago 4 illegals were found dead in the Arizona Desert trying to enter the US illegally. On them they had Marijuana. They were not trying to come here so they could mow our laws or pick lettuce as John McCain would like to claim.
In reality they were here to Break the law.
That is the real reason why I stand against illegal Aliens. I also stand against them because since they choose to live outside the law they do not have to follow the law. I have mentioned it here before, but several years ago I was involved in an accident, where the girl who caused the accident, was here illegally.
She did not have insurance, drove a car with bad tires, did not have any ID and yet could not be detained by DPS. So she fled back to Mexico and left all four of those she hit to pay for the damages she caused.
In addition illegals have criminals, IE Coyotes ( smugglers ) attacking them and killing them and holding them hostage, all because they know that illegals cannot run to the cops.
So if the leaders of the Republican Party think we should sell out our beliefs all to keep the Republican Party from dieing. I say too late. The Republican Party is all Already DEAD!
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Supreme Court Sells out America!
The Supreme Court has sold out. They have forgotten that what their job. Their job is to interpret existing law and not strive to write new law. But as this summer has proven several times that is what they now think their job is.
The Supreme courts ruling in saying.
"Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," Kennedy said.
"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal," he said.
He was joined by the court's four liberal justices.
The Supreme courts ruling in saying.
"Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways," Kennedy said.
"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal," he said.
He was joined by the court's four liberal justices.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Edward Snowden a Hero or a Villain???
Edward Snowden is a former NSA Contractor that decided to blow the whistle on the NSA and the Obama Administrations Expanded Surveillance program, which was grabbing and storing all Emails and Cell phone calls made by all Americans.
The Obama Administration took steps today to arrest him, by contacting Hong Kong, where it is believed he has put himself into hiding, and asking them to detain Snowden until they can extradite him back to the United States.
Again is he a Hero or Villain?
That is not a simple question. Nor is the answer simple or black and white.
Edward broke the law and broke non disclosure agreements he signed when he was given the job. Many of us have had to sign such agreements in order to work. I know, while working for the Publishing Company, I had to sign such agreements. They are legal agreements usually meant to protect the interests of the employer hiring the employee.
That being said Non disclosure agreements are not get out of free cards for the Employer if they are breaking the law. If an employee finds themselves in an illegal work environment it us up to them to do the right thing and report their employer, or be held just as accountable of the crimes committed as the employer when finally caught.
Just as Enron and many Bernie Madoff Employees found out as they were charged with crimes after their employers went down. An employee is given leeway if they choose to report an employer doing illegal things.
The challenge here is that revealing what he did, not only went against his non disclosure agreement and broke the law it endangered the lives of all Americans by weakening our nation.
However Edward Snowden is not responsible for weakening our nation. He only reported it. The Obama administration did by authorizing the project be done. I have posted here many many different times and ways how Obama has in his arrogance put this nation in danger.
Back to the original Question is Edward Snowden a hero or a villain? Keep in mind History now says that Bennedict Arnold is a traitor and a bad person. But when Bennedict Arnold did what he did, he thought he was doing the right thing and correcting a wrong. Was he wrong in thinking so? History tends to say he was and I think he was wrong. Arnold, did what he did in arrogance, and ended up living out his life in England as a broken, broke man.
Did Edward Snowden do what he did because he knew what he saw was wrong, or did he think arrogantly that it was up to him and only him to break this open?
In the end time will tell. A businessman in Iceland has hired a plane to fly Snowden to Iceland and offer him asylum there if the Icelandic Government grants it. Its hard to say if Snowden will eventually be a hero in American eyes or if he will have to live in obscurity in hiding in another nation not really even noticed by society.
The Obama Administration took steps today to arrest him, by contacting Hong Kong, where it is believed he has put himself into hiding, and asking them to detain Snowden until they can extradite him back to the United States.
Again is he a Hero or Villain?
That is not a simple question. Nor is the answer simple or black and white.
Edward broke the law and broke non disclosure agreements he signed when he was given the job. Many of us have had to sign such agreements in order to work. I know, while working for the Publishing Company, I had to sign such agreements. They are legal agreements usually meant to protect the interests of the employer hiring the employee.
That being said Non disclosure agreements are not get out of free cards for the Employer if they are breaking the law. If an employee finds themselves in an illegal work environment it us up to them to do the right thing and report their employer, or be held just as accountable of the crimes committed as the employer when finally caught.
Just as Enron and many Bernie Madoff Employees found out as they were charged with crimes after their employers went down. An employee is given leeway if they choose to report an employer doing illegal things.
The challenge here is that revealing what he did, not only went against his non disclosure agreement and broke the law it endangered the lives of all Americans by weakening our nation.
However Edward Snowden is not responsible for weakening our nation. He only reported it. The Obama administration did by authorizing the project be done. I have posted here many many different times and ways how Obama has in his arrogance put this nation in danger.
Back to the original Question is Edward Snowden a hero or a villain? Keep in mind History now says that Bennedict Arnold is a traitor and a bad person. But when Bennedict Arnold did what he did, he thought he was doing the right thing and correcting a wrong. Was he wrong in thinking so? History tends to say he was and I think he was wrong. Arnold, did what he did in arrogance, and ended up living out his life in England as a broken, broke man.
Did Edward Snowden do what he did because he knew what he saw was wrong, or did he think arrogantly that it was up to him and only him to break this open?
In the end time will tell. A businessman in Iceland has hired a plane to fly Snowden to Iceland and offer him asylum there if the Icelandic Government grants it. Its hard to say if Snowden will eventually be a hero in American eyes or if he will have to live in obscurity in hiding in another nation not really even noticed by society.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Obama's lies and slight of hand that May in fact make it even harder to get to the truth behind the IRS scandal.
During Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign he campaigned about needing to be open and transparent. He tore into the Bush Admin's hiding information.
In 2009, after getting into office Obama gave a pledge of an "era of new Open Government"
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.
Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.
I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
But in reality Obama was setting new laws and regulations in motion that are now making it even harder to investigate the Obama administration.
The Obama administration keeps holding so called town hall Meetings spouting forth that they preach openness and transparency. But in reality those Town Hall Meetings are loaded scams in their own right. They load them with people that are Obama Friendly and think the way Obama wants them to think and even proof read the questions before they go in.
Obama is nothing more than a liar and a crook and deserves to be impeached. Although he probably never will.
I am asking for anyone to come on here and defend Obama. Please tell me where I am wrong and how Obama is really a stand up guy??????????????????????
I am getting tired of all of the scams and the scandals and the like, that involve the Obama admin and how many Obama apologists there are out there trying to throw blame everyone but on the man that deserves it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/20/white-house-irs-slowed-down-document-requests-memos-show/
In 2009, after getting into office Obama gave a pledge of an "era of new Open Government"
Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open GovernmentMy Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.
Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.
I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
But in reality Obama was setting new laws and regulations in motion that are now making it even harder to investigate the Obama administration.
The Obama administration keeps holding so called town hall Meetings spouting forth that they preach openness and transparency. But in reality those Town Hall Meetings are loaded scams in their own right. They load them with people that are Obama Friendly and think the way Obama wants them to think and even proof read the questions before they go in.
Obama is nothing more than a liar and a crook and deserves to be impeached. Although he probably never will.
I am asking for anyone to come on here and defend Obama. Please tell me where I am wrong and how Obama is really a stand up guy??????????????????????
I am getting tired of all of the scams and the scandals and the like, that involve the Obama admin and how many Obama apologists there are out there trying to throw blame everyone but on the man that deserves it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/20/white-house-irs-slowed-down-document-requests-memos-show/
Even as the freshly minted Obama administration was pledging a
"new era of open government" in 2009, officials were quietly adding new
rules that had the potential to slow down public requests for
documents.
Those rules, detailed in memos reviewed by FoxNews.com, could even trip up present-day efforts to dig into the IRS' practice of targeting conservative groups. The rules detailed in the memos largely emanated from the Treasury Department and, specifically, the IRS.
"It would seem to repudiate this notion that this is going to be the most transparent government in history," said Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, the group that first obtained the memos.
The memos follow reports about the administration's use of private
email accounts, and coincide with ongoing debate about government
transparency -- particularly with recent disclosures about widespread
surveillance programs.
Epstein said the document request procedures are "troubling" since the media are "really concerned about the limits of government power."
According to the documents, the Treasury Department in 2009 set up an additional review for requests involving "sensitive information," which covered a broad range of items. The White House sometimes got involved, slowing down the process. The IRS also acknowledged having another review process for requests from "major media," but not for requests from private individuals.
Members of the media often try to obtain documents not readily available by citing a law known as the Freedom of Information Act. The Treasury Department, though, in late 2009 erected speed bumps for some so-called FOIA requests.
The rules were detailed in a November 2010 memo and report sent from the Treasury inspector general to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
The documents showed the Treasury Department set up an additional "formal level of review" for requests for "sensitive information." This category would cover everything from emails to memos to calendars to travel logs for top department officials, legal advisers, senior advisers and others.
Once a request was deemed "sensitive," it would then go before a "review committee," made up of officials from several Treasury offices.
Further, the document said a special report would be prepared for IRS requests from "major media." This covers requests from traditional news media as well as bloggers, and according to the report covered information that "was likely to attract news media or congressional interest, involved large dollar amounts, or involved unique or novel issues."
This report would then be sent to a higher-up in the division who decided whether the material should be disclosed.
The report repeatedly said that, in most cases, political appointees were not involved in these decisions, and that the agencies have no procedures to allow that.
But Epstein said these rules could cause problems as Congress and the media dig deeper into the origin of the IRS practice of singling out conservative groups for additional scrutiny.
He pointed to another memo, dated April 15, 2009, from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig that urged "executive agencies" to consult with his office "on all document requests that may involve documents with White House equities." Craig said this pertains to everything from FOIA requests to congressional requests to subpoenas.
This practice apparently dates back to 1993. The Treasury IG memo cited this, and described the White House involvement as "minimal and limited." However, the report also said the White House involvement "was responsible in several cases for adding a significant processing delay," which in Treasury's case slowed them down.
"It actually is heavily ironic in the realm of transparency," Epstein said.
He pointed to edicts and memos early on in the first term of the administration stressing transparency. Obama issued a January 2009 directive calling for an "unprecedented level of openness."
Attorney General Eric Holder in March 2009 directed all Executive Branch departments to use a "presumption of openness" when dealing with FOIA requests.
To that end, the administration has instituted several other transparency initiatives. It has followed through on requiring Cabinet secretaries to hold Internet town hall discussions, set up a comprehensive website to track stimulus spending, and set up a national declassification center.
Those rules, detailed in memos reviewed by FoxNews.com, could even trip up present-day efforts to dig into the IRS' practice of targeting conservative groups. The rules detailed in the memos largely emanated from the Treasury Department and, specifically, the IRS.
"It would seem to repudiate this notion that this is going to be the most transparent government in history," said Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, the group that first obtained the memos.
"It would seem to repudiate this notion that this is going to be the most transparent government in history."- Dan Epstein, director of Cause of Action
Epstein said the document request procedures are "troubling" since the media are "really concerned about the limits of government power."
According to the documents, the Treasury Department in 2009 set up an additional review for requests involving "sensitive information," which covered a broad range of items. The White House sometimes got involved, slowing down the process. The IRS also acknowledged having another review process for requests from "major media," but not for requests from private individuals.
Members of the media often try to obtain documents not readily available by citing a law known as the Freedom of Information Act. The Treasury Department, though, in late 2009 erected speed bumps for some so-called FOIA requests.
The rules were detailed in a November 2010 memo and report sent from the Treasury inspector general to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
The documents showed the Treasury Department set up an additional "formal level of review" for requests for "sensitive information." This category would cover everything from emails to memos to calendars to travel logs for top department officials, legal advisers, senior advisers and others.
Once a request was deemed "sensitive," it would then go before a "review committee," made up of officials from several Treasury offices.
Further, the document said a special report would be prepared for IRS requests from "major media." This covers requests from traditional news media as well as bloggers, and according to the report covered information that "was likely to attract news media or congressional interest, involved large dollar amounts, or involved unique or novel issues."
This report would then be sent to a higher-up in the division who decided whether the material should be disclosed.
The report repeatedly said that, in most cases, political appointees were not involved in these decisions, and that the agencies have no procedures to allow that.
But Epstein said these rules could cause problems as Congress and the media dig deeper into the origin of the IRS practice of singling out conservative groups for additional scrutiny.
He pointed to another memo, dated April 15, 2009, from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig that urged "executive agencies" to consult with his office "on all document requests that may involve documents with White House equities." Craig said this pertains to everything from FOIA requests to congressional requests to subpoenas.
This practice apparently dates back to 1993. The Treasury IG memo cited this, and described the White House involvement as "minimal and limited." However, the report also said the White House involvement "was responsible in several cases for adding a significant processing delay," which in Treasury's case slowed them down.
"It actually is heavily ironic in the realm of transparency," Epstein said.
He pointed to edicts and memos early on in the first term of the administration stressing transparency. Obama issued a January 2009 directive calling for an "unprecedented level of openness."
Attorney General Eric Holder in March 2009 directed all Executive Branch departments to use a "presumption of openness" when dealing with FOIA requests.
To that end, the administration has instituted several other transparency initiatives. It has followed through on requiring Cabinet secretaries to hold Internet town hall discussions, set up a comprehensive website to track stimulus spending, and set up a national declassification center.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Supreme Court Screws Arizona!!!
Arizona Voters approved a proposition many years ago stating that everyone that votes in Arizona had to show ID to do so.
I am amazed that that no other states or even the federal government had not thought of this before. But then considering the Democrats penchent for voter fraud, it has been proven that 10's of thousands of dead Chicagoans voted for President John F Kennedy, I guess that makes sense, Democrats would not want a law demanding legal verification of those who voted.
But in the end it made perfect sense that people verify who they were to vote. To bad little of what the Supreme Court states any more makes any real sense.
The Supreme Court justices ruled that a state cannot add requirements onto Federal election requirements.
But the two decentors both said, hold it the voters approved it. Why cannot individual states add additional conditions onto existing rules.
The reality is that there is now nothing to stop an illegal alien or anyone else to register to vote illegally without showing any ID's and influencing elections.
This is a dangerous precedent to set.
Unless that is your the Democrats and were happy to Have Mickey Mouse register to vote.
Unless that is your a liberal and want your policies pushed on and pressed on others despite the fact that most Americans do not want Feds listening on their calls or emails or even using the IRS to harrass Conservative Groups.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6074157&page=1#.UcJBdtj9wrw
I am amazed that that no other states or even the federal government had not thought of this before. But then considering the Democrats penchent for voter fraud, it has been proven that 10's of thousands of dead Chicagoans voted for President John F Kennedy, I guess that makes sense, Democrats would not want a law demanding legal verification of those who voted.
But in the end it made perfect sense that people verify who they were to vote. To bad little of what the Supreme Court states any more makes any real sense.
The Supreme Court justices ruled that a state cannot add requirements onto Federal election requirements.
But the two decentors both said, hold it the voters approved it. Why cannot individual states add additional conditions onto existing rules.
The reality is that there is now nothing to stop an illegal alien or anyone else to register to vote illegally without showing any ID's and influencing elections.
This is a dangerous precedent to set.
Unless that is your the Democrats and were happy to Have Mickey Mouse register to vote.
Unless that is your a liberal and want your policies pushed on and pressed on others despite the fact that most Americans do not want Feds listening on their calls or emails or even using the IRS to harrass Conservative Groups.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6074157&page=1#.UcJBdtj9wrw
Mickey Mouse Is Registered to Vote? Former ACORN Employees Speak Out on Accusations of Fraud
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
FBI Heads defend the phone and email tapping scandal by the NSA, stating that if they were in place 10 years ago they could have stopped 911. Fine, but where's the proof????????
The reality is that the experts state that the amount of data that the NSA was collecting was too over whelming to be used to hunt down terrorists.
The reality is that this administration and its cronies have been caught in so many lies, which ones can we believe????
The reality is that if you want to track terrorists, you find known terrorists and wait till others call them and then get legal court orders to tap their phones and listen to them and track them and who they are talking to.
Each of the terrorists who were listened to by the Bush Administration were located outside of the US.
Obama Attacked Bush for this practice in his 2008 Presidential Campaign. Stating that the actions that the Bush Administration had done in listening to known terrorist calls was reprehensible and down right illegal.
So is what Obama now doing in recording all US citizen phone calls not illegal?????????????? I mean it is far worse than what Bush was doing.
The NSA was and is recording Millions of US citizens Cell phone calls. Ok so maybe no one was sitting there and individually listening to them, but they were recording them to data mine at the very least.
Again isn't this far worse, especially if they are recording the calls to data mine and that there is no way in heck that they could be used to stop Terrorists?
I said along time ago in the days and weeks after 911 when many conservatives were screaming that they would happily give up freedoms to save their lives. I said I would rather die at the hands of a terrorists than give up one freedom.
I still stand behind this belief to this day. Is life really worth living if you live in a prison, a prison built out of fear of the unknown?
There is a saying and that is that a Brave man dies but once, but a coward dies a thousand times. I am not saying that it is cowardly to want to stay alive.
But what is it to be willing to sell ones freedoms to stay alive??????????????????
When are we going to stand up to the Bullies in the OBama administration and demand our rights be returned???????????????????????
The reality is that this administration and its cronies have been caught in so many lies, which ones can we believe????
The reality is that if you want to track terrorists, you find known terrorists and wait till others call them and then get legal court orders to tap their phones and listen to them and track them and who they are talking to.
Each of the terrorists who were listened to by the Bush Administration were located outside of the US.
Obama Attacked Bush for this practice in his 2008 Presidential Campaign. Stating that the actions that the Bush Administration had done in listening to known terrorist calls was reprehensible and down right illegal.
So is what Obama now doing in recording all US citizen phone calls not illegal?????????????? I mean it is far worse than what Bush was doing.
The NSA was and is recording Millions of US citizens Cell phone calls. Ok so maybe no one was sitting there and individually listening to them, but they were recording them to data mine at the very least.
Again isn't this far worse, especially if they are recording the calls to data mine and that there is no way in heck that they could be used to stop Terrorists?
I said along time ago in the days and weeks after 911 when many conservatives were screaming that they would happily give up freedoms to save their lives. I said I would rather die at the hands of a terrorists than give up one freedom.
I still stand behind this belief to this day. Is life really worth living if you live in a prison, a prison built out of fear of the unknown?
There is a saying and that is that a Brave man dies but once, but a coward dies a thousand times. I am not saying that it is cowardly to want to stay alive.
But what is it to be willing to sell ones freedoms to stay alive??????????????????
When are we going to stand up to the Bullies in the OBama administration and demand our rights be returned???????????????????????
Monday, June 10, 2013
What if the Federal Government was Going through you Paper Mail???
There are many people, especially Obama Apologists, who are coming out, But but spying on and reading our phone calls and emails is to help capture Terrorists. They say that Email is electronic and open to all to grab.
An Excuse that most experts say is Hog Huey because that to much data to surf through to find Terrorist chatter.
That being said some are trying to use this as an excuse. My response is, what would you be saying if they started going through all of your paper mail.
What if they legally put tracking devices every car you drove and kept track of you that way???
I mean shoot MADD tried pushing laws through both state and federal governments to demand all vehicles had Ignition lock devices, not on just people who were convicted??????????????????
I mean this is ridiculous. Where do we draw the line????????????????
How many freedoms must we give up before people start saying enough is enough???
Do people really not care about loosing their freedoms?????????????
I mean I have heard people say before about Government and law enforcement infringing on our rights that only criminals and those that break the law need worry.
In the case of reading my email and listening to my calls that is hog huey at best. I am not worried about my emails and Cell calls breaking the law. But what I say in my emails and cell phone calls are private and personal and for my eyes and ears only. NO ONE ELSE.
Especially A criminal like OBAMA and his minions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An Excuse that most experts say is Hog Huey because that to much data to surf through to find Terrorist chatter.
That being said some are trying to use this as an excuse. My response is, what would you be saying if they started going through all of your paper mail.
What if they legally put tracking devices every car you drove and kept track of you that way???
I mean shoot MADD tried pushing laws through both state and federal governments to demand all vehicles had Ignition lock devices, not on just people who were convicted??????????????????
I mean this is ridiculous. Where do we draw the line????????????????
How many freedoms must we give up before people start saying enough is enough???
Do people really not care about loosing their freedoms?????????????
I mean I have heard people say before about Government and law enforcement infringing on our rights that only criminals and those that break the law need worry.
In the case of reading my email and listening to my calls that is hog huey at best. I am not worried about my emails and Cell calls breaking the law. But what I say in my emails and cell phone calls are private and personal and for my eyes and ears only. NO ONE ELSE.
Especially A criminal like OBAMA and his minions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)