Democrats pass legislation to pare down Bill of Rights
 

miles wrote:
SnoMan wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 06:10:53 -0700, miles wrote:

Tell us what right you have personally been affected by losing.


For one, I now need a passport to go to Canada that I have to buy

Huh? You never had a "RIGHT" to travel where you want without a
passport. No right was taken away. Security became stronger. You need
to learn what the term 'rights' mean. Start by reading the constitution.

another there is a lot of silence about how much improper snooping and
eves dropping that has been done

I asked what right YOU had taken away and have been affected by. Now
you're making a guess and touting what you've 'heard'. How about facts?

How many people have been barred from flying because they haver same
name

We learn and make improvements to try to avoid issues like this but they
have happened for years and will continue. Nothings perfect. How many
people has this security caught and prevented possible serious crimes?
Again, what right of yours was taken away? Or are you just on the
liberal bandwagon of hearsays and guesses?


I could go on but I can clearly say I have never seen such secracy in
government as today.

Yes I know the liberals want our enemies to know our security plans and
actions. Still can't answer what right YOU have had taken away can you?
Just the liberal whines about what you do not know...but it must be bad
right?
Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would have
loved the security of the Soviet Union.

Democrats pass legislation to pare down Bill of Rights
 

bob r wrote:

Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would have
loved the security of the Soviet Union.

I've been to Russia (in 1979). Have you? Again I ask, what 'right'
have you yourself lost?

Democrats pass legislation to pare down Bill of Rights
 

"miles" wrote in message
...
bob r wrote:

Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would have
loved the security of the Soviet Union.

I've been to Russia (in 1979). Have you?

Then you know how secure it was . . .

Democrats pass legislation to pare down Bill of Rights
 

In article ,
SnoMan wrote:

I now need a passport to go to Canada

I believe you need a passport to RETURN to USA from Canada. If you really
need one to ENTER Canada, your issue is with them.

I have never been to Canada. However, when the time finally comes that I wish
to go, I'll have to get a passport. How draconian can it get?

there is a lot of silence about how much improper snooping and
eves dropping that has been done on John Q Public last several years.

Yes, the silence is "deafening". I'm sure the New York Times is as frustrated
as you that it is increasingly difficult to reveal national secrets and
security operations.

How many people have been barred from flying
because they haver same name

None. (Zip, zero, nada.)

air marshalls on flights but they stopped them under reagan.

Ah, HA!! I always suspected he did more than just sleep and eat jelly beans.
....those RASCALLY Republicans!

I have never seen such secracy in government as today.

Ignoring the obvious (just what DOES "secrecy" LOOK like?), do you suppose it
could be due to the fact that we're at war?

I can just envision the New York Times headline, dated June 4, 1944:
"Invasion Tomorrow at Normandy". Subhead: "Calais Just a Ruse". The next
day's headline would read, "Weather Delays Invasion, Now Set For Tomorrow".

Curretn adm9in used fear to get there way

Yep, they did it ALONE while 435 members of Congress were out to lunch.

fortunately the game is about over now.

Yeah, then we can all relax, bring home the troops (invalidating the ultimate
sacrifice by their fallen comrades) and wait for the next attack. What a
plan. sigh

(The Patriot act should have never been passed

With the word "patriot" in it, I'm surprised it was.

and would never been passed today. )

Agreed, considering MUCH more pressing issues like yawn health care,
education and the minimum wage.

Rush IS right: It's going to take a couple or three more attacks, probably
even more devastating than 9/11, before we wake up to the threat we STILL
face. Sadly, many of the plethora of lily-livered leftists that exist today
STILL won't "get it". Peace, man.
--
JR

Democrats pass legislation to pare down Bill of Rights
 

Dan Listermann wrote:
"miles" wrote in message
...
bob r wrote:

Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would have
loved the security of the Soviet Union.
I've been to Russia (in 1979). Have you?

Then you know how secure it was . . .

Yes I do, and you don't. You have no clue what you are trying to argue.

Democrats pass legislation to pare down Bill of Rights
 

"miles" wrote in message
...
Dan Listermann wrote:
"miles" wrote in message
...
bob r wrote:

Every time you tighten "security" you lose freedom. I bet you would
have loved the security of the Soviet Union.
I've been to Russia (in 1979). Have you?

Then you know how secure it was . . .

Yes I do, and you don't. You have no clue what you are trying to argue.

Well then maybe you need to clarify your point.

Democrats pass legislation to pare down Bill of Rights
 

The ONLY rights anyone has are those for which he's willing to die.





























"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...
Bill Of Rights to be Pared Down To A Manageable Five

May 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC-Flanked by key Democrat members of Congress, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill of
Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight,
no-nonsense" five.
As supporters looked on, Pelosi signed the "Bill Of Rights Reduction
And Consolidation Act of 2007."
A Democratic initiative that went unopposed by congressional Democrats,
the revised Bill of Rights provides citizens with a "more manageable" set
of privacy and due-process rights by eliminating five amendments and
condensing and/or restructuring five others. The Second Amendment, which
protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the first on chopping block.
Calling the historic reduction "a victory for Blue State America,"
Pelosi promised that the new document would do away with "constitutional
impediments to Democrat government power."
"It is high time we reaffirmed our commitment to this living document
and enduring symbol of American ideals," Pelosi said. "By making the Bill
of Rights a tool for progress instead of a hindrance to political power,
we honor the true spirit of our nation's forefathers."
The Fourth Amendment, which long protected citizens' homes against
unreasonable search and seizure, was among the eliminated amendments. Also
stricken was the Ninth Amendment, which stated that the enumeration of
certain Constitutional rights does not result in the abrogation of rights
not mentioned.
"Quite honestly, I could never get my head around what the Ninth
Amendment meant anyway," said new House Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.), one of the leading advocates of the revised Bill of Rights. "So
goodbye to that one."
Amendments V through VII, which guaranteed the right to legal counsel
in criminal cases, and guarded against double jeopardy, testifying against
oneself, biased juries, and drawn-out trials, have been condensed into
Super-Amendment V: The One About Trials which grants equal rights to
terrorists.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales criticized the slimmed-down Bill of
Rights as "another liberal power grab."
"Go up to the average citizen and ask them what's in the Bill of
Rights," Gonzales said. "Chances are, they'll have only a vague notion.
They just know it's a set of rules put in place to protect their
individual freedoms from government intrusion, and they assume that's a
good thing, but Democrats, as usual, think the American people are
clueless dolts who can't count to ten so the fewer the Amendments the
better."
Pelosi responded sharply to critics who charge that the Bill of Rights
no longer safeguards certain basic, inalienable rights. "We're not taking
away personal rights; we're increasing personal security and cleaning up
the house," Pelosi said. "By allowing for greater government control over
the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights will now offer
condensed personal freedoms whenever they are deemed appropriate and
unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective operation and
expansion of the federal government."
Pelosi added that, thanks to several key additions, the Bill of Rights
now offers protections that were previously lacking, including the right
to be protected by soldiers quartered in one's home (Amendment III), the
guarantee that activities not specifically delegated to the states and
people will be carried out by the federal government (Amendment VI), and
freedom from Judeo-Christianity and anti-Democrat Party speech (Amendment
I).
According to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the original Bill of Rights,
though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."
"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Reid
said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never
could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day
attempt to jail alleged terrorists indefinitely without judicial review.
There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then.
These aspiring world citizens who have every right to tax supported
lawyers and speedy trials and writs of habeas corpus."
"Any machine, no matter how well-built, periodically needs a tune-up
to keep it in good working order," Speaker Pelosi said. "Now that we have
the bugs worked out of the ol' Constitution, she'll be purring like a
kitten for the upcoming 2008 elections - just in time to consolidate
Democratic power."
"Ten was just too much of a handful," Pelosi added. "Five civil
liberties are more than enough."
President Bush promises a veto.

Wilbur Hubbard