Posted on 11/29/2005 4:30:03 PM PST by SoothsayerToo
External security carried out by our military, a competent CIA, and a state Department stripped of Marxists staff along with an immigration policy would give Americans their security and their freedom.
Mark my words. From the evidence of the invasion of Amerindians from Mexico and South America and whoever else can make it across the Rio Grande and the Canadian Borders coupled with the growth of Federal security apparatus, Homeland Security (the latter needs the former for legitimacy), Americans will mark the reign of Bush II as the beginning of America's subversion to the New World Order.
This president has succeeded so far in protecting oil interests. No social security reform. No immigration control. No control on spending.
So he hasn't used Homeland Security to lock up Americans, yet. Just wait until the Democrats get control. They will make Waco look like a picnic.
I called the court that day to make sure I wasn't on the docket.
>I don't have to rethink it. Just because the feds do it, doesn't make it legal. You might try reading the constitution once in a while it is a great eye opener.<
Nice comeback. My suggestion to you is that understanding it is even more important.It is hard to talk about the Lefties being looney when somone on this board advocates that you should not have to proove who you are to drive a car enter a military instillation or seek employment with the government.That would be the logical extension of this phantom constitutional right you are expousing.
"From my limited legal knowledge, any police office may request your ID if he has probable cause!"
Actually, the standard is "reasonable suspicion," which is much easier to satisfy.
"...when somone on this board advocates that you should not have to proove who you are to drive a car enter a military instillation or seek employment with the government."
Looking for the post that states this, it dosen't appear to be on this thread
Sounds like you can make some money off that officer, and I think you should. Multiple cases of intimidation under color of authority, failure to identify, trespassing, etc.
Yeah, I was gonna go that route, but then I found out how much a lawyer costs.
There might be one willing to take the case on a contingency - you pay him nothing unless he wins money, in which case he keeps some of it.
Interesting. There is a post office on the Fed. Center grounds. I wonder if everyone dropping off mail there gets hit for ID?
If he had arrested me I would have gone that route, no doubt. Since he apologized and it didn't cost me anything but angry feelings in the end, I don't think it's worth it at this point. However, I still want to point it out that it's being done.
When you can produce a federal law that does not violate this clause of the bill of rights
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
and that specifically says that a Citizen of these United States MUST carry ID, then I can agree with your assertation.
Until then, Federal Property or not, unless you are Military which is required by law to carry an ID card, what you are saying is wrong.
There is no law that requires a private citizen to carry and or produce any kind of Identification.
Never has been and I hope to God there never will be.
If they try to pass such a law, then the government in our country has become our enemy and we'd better dismantle it and toss it into the Potomac. Along with all of the treasonous talking heads that populate it.
There are exceptions and abuses in every system. Compare ours with, for example, Continental Europe. For a more extreme comaparison, compare with Latin America, Asia and Africa.
>Looking for the post that states this, it dosen't appear to be on this thread<
Go back and read the thread specifically looking at the comment I was replying to and if you still have a comprehension problem write me back.
"...and if you still have a comprehension problem write me back."
LOL - No Comprehension problem here - I understand fully that you are prone to simply making stuff up.
Haven't read the thread have you?
Yep. This "yar pehpahs pliz" crap so that a privileged group can avoid the dreadful burden of walking a block or two to the bus stop is outrageous.
I believe that you are incorrect on this. Probable cause is no longer requried.
>He was advocating nothing, and made no statement that would cause someone to peg him as a "leftist Loonie"<
No one was pegged as a leftist Loonie.(comprehension problem rears it's ugly head again)
The converation was #16 and # 17 followed by # 19 and #23.
It is rely simple to trace comments if you really want to.
Now to your comprehension problem.If you had followed the posting you would see I was sighting examples of ID requirements that would not be possible if their was a constitutional prohibition against being required to produce ID and refuting the statement that Federal authorities did not have the right to ask for ID on a public bus no matter where it is.
OH ... I get it ... when you say "when somone on this board advocates " it dosen't really mean that someone on this board is advocating that - it means that you have taken some statement somewhere ( you don't say what was said or where ) and twisted it via your own contortions into said unknown person advocating it.
Well - it appears that using that sense of "logic" one dosen't have to bother following any thread anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.