Ask James48843

Just got back from a pool party, BBQed a whole PIG, yummy! Now I know what I should have done!!:o
I was asking for instructions, nobody suggested a thing! I shouldn't have drank so much Sangria!! View attachment 6463
 
Lets take a time out. I find the comparison a stretch at best and it just gives me the willies.

Post should be respectful and factual.

Post should be respectful of our President. And, criticism of him, while guaranteed under freedom of speech and press, should be factual and not libel.

Be careful what you write on a open message board while working for the government too. Bigger Brother is watching.

I voted for the other guy, but President Obama won. Get over it. Get on with living and making ready for the next opportunity to change leadership. Don't be a sore looser or a whiner, just get over it.

Happy Fathers day and have a safe weekend.:D
 
McDuck,
For Toms review. In the meantime you have a possible 4 days off. This ban is temporary while your actions are being reviewed.
Spaf
 
CountryBoy said:
Thanks OBGibby,

Clearest explanation I've heard on the Patriot Act and cut thru all the ACLU BS.

CB
Click to expand...


Thanks goes to the Department of Justice website for the verbage listed above. Many aspects of the PATRIOT Act simply take tools law enforcement has had (for many years) to investigate and prosecute organized crime and drug traffickers and applied those tools to terrorism investigations.

There's a lot of misconceptions about the PATRIOT Act out there, often because it fits in nicely with the views and perceptions of some folks who did not care for the previous administration. But like they say, sometimes facts are inconvienent...
 
OBGibby said:
The PATRIOT Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, in the Senate by 98-1, and in the House of Representatives by 357-66.
  • The PATRIOT Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. These tools have been used for decades and have been reviewed and approved by the courts.
  • The PATRIOT Act facilitates information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better "connect the dots." In the past, different agencies and departments were collecting data but not sharing it with each other. Now we are able to share that data to prevent future attacks.
  • The PATRIOT Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats. The Act brought the law up to date with current technology, so we no longer have to fight a digital-age battle with legal authorities left over from the era of rotary telephones.
  • The PATRIOT Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who detonates it. That's why the Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad.
Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act​




Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)


Myth: The ACLU has claimed that "Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the 'thought police' can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit." (ACLU, July 22, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans' First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records - whether from a library or any other business - can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.

Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who's sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.

In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.

Congress reviews the government's use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must "fully inform" Congress on how it has been implemented. On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department's use of section 215: "The Committee's review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused."


Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants "would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States." (ACLU, October 23, 2001)

Reality: Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention - detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.
In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest.



Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal's associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.

The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)
Click to expand...

Thanks OBGibby,

Clearest explanation I've heard on the Patriot Act and cut thru all the ACLU BS.

CB
 
XL-entLady said:
There are some who define it as drawing up something that goes against the Bill of Rights and then calling it "The Patriot Act."
Click to expand...




The PATRIOT Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, in the Senate by 98-1, and in the House of Representatives by 357-66.
  • The PATRIOT Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. These tools have been used for decades and have been reviewed and approved by the courts.
  • The PATRIOT Act facilitates information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better "connect the dots." In the past, different agencies and departments were collecting data but not sharing it with each other. Now we are able to share that data to prevent future attacks.
  • The PATRIOT Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats. The Act brought the law up to date with current technology, so we no longer have to fight a digital-age battle with legal authorities left over from the era of rotary telephones.
  • The PATRIOT Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who detonates it. That's why the Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad.
Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act​




Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)


Myth: The ACLU has claimed that "Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the 'thought police' can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit." (ACLU, July 22, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans' First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records - whether from a library or any other business - can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.

Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who's sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.

In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.

Congress reviews the government's use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must "fully inform" Congress on how it has been implemented. On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department's use of section 215: "The Committee's review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused."


Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants "would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States." (ACLU, October 23, 2001)

Reality: Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention - detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.
In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest.

Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal's associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.

The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)
 
America is composed of people of many, many different faiths. Personally, I would welcome learning more about how God works in others lives. Perhaps some of our posters here, who are Muslim, Jewish, or another religious belief, can share what they believe and understand, to help us understand their faith better. Some people don't believe in God at all. Sometimes people simply have different experiences when it comes to interacting with God.

In our American culture, my experience has been that we don't publicly talk much about our faith in God. I have lived in areas of the world where faith in God is much more public, and a center of discussion.

I would welcome hearing from others what their experiences with God have been.

When I was younger, I pretty much was both ignorant of, and did not understand, God.

Now, I have had enough experiences in my life to convince me that He is real, is alive, is working today in all kinds of things, and I would welcome people of all faiths to share their experiences of their faith.

(Let's see if we can turn this into a good, educational, calm discussion and learning experience...)
 
Buster said:
I'm getting tired of this ignorant sh!t!!
Click to expand...
Was that Sh!t or Shiite? I think that makes two votes for Shiite!:laugh:

Lighten up Francis! Same to you HalfBreed!

Lots of laughs were made at the expense of GWB when he was President. Now it's your guy's turn in the barrel and he's going to get his fair share. Learn to laugh at it now, or it's going to be a long 3 years seven months!

Excellent answer James! I especially like the last paragraph. Too bad our Muslim brothers do not see us in the same light.
 
McDuck said:
James,

Is BHO a Sunni or Shiite?
Click to expand...

You know Greg- when you asked that question, I wasn't sure how to answer it for you. I have been mulling over an answer for the last day or two. I could have slammed it, or could have ignored it.

So I thought about it and decided I wasn't wise enough to give you your answer.

I prayed tonight that God would give me insight into the way to answer you properly.

And he did. (He's great, isn't he?)

He pointed me to Hebrews, Chapter 9 , starting at Verse 11.

To lay the groundwork, you asked "Is BHO a Sunni or a Shiite?"

Those are both terms of a religion which recognize God.

But the insinuation you make is that one or the other is the right one, or that both are wrong. I would gather from your past postings that you meant the latter. I may be wrong, and if I am, I apologize in advance. But if your question wasn't meant to slam, then here is your answer:

Shiite and Suni both recognize God, Allah. He is the Creator, the Merciful Judge. The difference is they each believe something different about the chain of succession after Mohammad. Suni believe that Mohammad did not appoint a successor, and therefore their spiritual leader had to be appointed by Muslims themselves. Shiia, on the other hand, believe that Mohammad appointed Ali as his spiritual heir.

Both are centered around events that happened long after Christ walked as a man-in human form- on this earth.

And the answer found in Hebrews, Chaper 9, is this-


"11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! 15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."


(Although I am led to believe the word is supposed to be tent, not tabernacle, in verse 11. )

What that means to me is that you are asking "Which is correct?", a question of this world- when in fact the bible teaches that Christ is not of this world- not of this creation. He didn't come so that man could use religion to pull apart each other. He came so that anyone who believes in Him, and in the Father, can have eternal life. He came so that we can be set free of our sins.

Our President has said he is a Christian, that he believes who Jesus is, and was, and will be. That's good enough for me. I am happy for him. Delighted, actually. I am joyus that our President says he knows and has accepted Christ.

You are free to believe what you wish to believe about our President, nothing I can say will change that belief.

I pray every day that those who don't know Him will learn about Him, and enjoy the relationship He offers. It's a wonderful thing.

(See, we have a thread with both politics and religion in one thread, and we still can be civil, no?)

Many in the world believe in the same God- the God of Abraham. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe this--What we all have in common is that God is the creator of all things.
 
Last edited:
CountryBoy said:
Wow, sorry for speaking my mind, but I was dead serious, but maybe I should'nt have put the laugh emoticon on there, but I wanted try to lighten the mood.....

There was no intention on my part to let my comments on this thread "degenerate into an acidic mess." I have tried to keep my very personal opinions limited to my account, so as not to ruffle any feathers or folks sensitivies.

So I will excuse myself from voicing my opinion on this thread since a honest comment has caused some folks heartburn. And again will try to stay on my account, unless the comment is strictly TSP related.

CB
Click to expand...
CB, my dear friend, I'm truly sorry for accidentally ruffling your feathers. My comment was meant to be a gentle reminder to all thread posters at large and to one member in particular but it WASN'T you. I guess I should have done a PM to that member instead.

Please don't restrict your comments to your MB home. I've told you in the past that your reactions to things reminds me very much of my spouse's reactions. Yes, he can be a GOF too. In fact, he has a PhD in GOF! :toung: So I would miss seeing your comments on other threads.

Take care, my friend,
Lady
 
XL-entLady said:
There are some who define it as drawing up something that goes against the Bill of Rights and then calling it "The Patriot Act." :nuts: Kidding, kidding!

Seriously, as a member I have been uncomfortable with the Obama bashing. And this thread can be informative and a tribute to one of our most knowledgeable (and patient) members or it can degenerate into an acidic mess. I hope we can all take the high road here. :o

Lady
Click to expand...


Wow, sorry for speaking my mind, but I was dead serious, but maybe I should'nt have put the laugh emoticon on there, but I wanted try to lighten the mood.

But I still am very serious about my comment "I thought it was to defend the Constitution against enemies of the state." Honest question and I thought I would get an honest answer. Guess not. The oath I took when I came to work for the DoD was that (a word may be out of place but and I'm sure someone will chastise me on that) but the meaning is there. As I recall, also it didn't include any specific person, but it may have include the passage "office of the President", but I'm not sure it even included that.

There was no intention on my part to let my comments on this thread "degenerate into an acidic mess." I have tried to keep my very personal opinions limited to my account, so as not to ruffle any feathers or folks sensitivies.

So I will excuse myself from voicing my opinion on this thread since a honest comment has caused some folks heartburn. And again will try to stay on my account, unless the comment is strictly TSP related.

CB
 
Last edited:
CountryBoy said:
I thought it was to defend the Constitution against enemies of the state. ;) Now the question is, How do you define enemy of the state? :laugh:

CB
Click to expand...
There are some who define it as drawing up something that goes against the Bill of Rights and then calling it "The Patriot Act." :nuts: Kidding, kidding!

Seriously, as a member I have been uncomfortable with the Obama bashing. And this thread can be informative and a tribute to one of our most knowledgeable (and patient) members or it can degenerate into an acidic mess. I hope we can all take the high road here. :o

Lady
 
Buster said:
I'm getting tired of this ignorant sh!t!!


Obama sets record straight on his religion...
"I've been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some silly e-mail ... send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this is all crazy. Educate."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22767392/


I get slammed for having posted false facts only to be proven wrong by someone digging it up in SNOPES.....time for this crap about OBAMA to stop!:mad:

Moderators and Admins please do your unbiased jobs here.
Click to expand...
Just what would you suggest I do:cool:?
 
I think it should be mentioned that there are military folks on this board that have taken an oath to support and defend, and the commander-in-chief fits in there somewhere... You think we could lighten the BHO rehetoric up a bit?
 
I'm getting tired of this ignorant sh!t!!


Obama sets record straight on his religion...
"I've been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some silly e-mail ... send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this is all crazy. Educate."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22767392/


I get slammed for having posted false facts only to be proven wrong by someone digging it up in SNOPES.....time for this crap about OBAMA to stop!:mad:

Moderators and Admins please do your unbiased jobs here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top