Usa Thread

[Flashermac]

Yo, Steve. One step forward, 2 steps backwards.

 

 

 

Police Given Direct Line To Cell Phone Searches

 

 

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Think about all the personal information we keep in our cell phones: It’s something to consider after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled it is now legal for police to search cell phones without a warrant.

 

Former Dallas FBI Agent Danny Defenbaugh said the ruling gives law enforcement a leg up. “I think not only will it help them, but it could be life saving,†said the former Special Agent, who was based in Dallas.

The decision stems from an Indiana case where police arrested a man for dealing drugs. An officer searched the suspect’s cell phone without warrant.

 

The judge in the appeal case, Judge Richard Posner, agreed that the officer had to search the phone immediately or risk losing valuable evidence. Judge Posner ruled it was a matter of urgency, arguing it was possible for an accomplice to wipe the phone clean using a computer or other remote device.

 

Defenbaugh says the ruling takes into account exigent or time-sensitive circumstances that could be life saving in more urgent cases, such as child abduction. â€If the child is alive and you’re only minutes behind, that could be critical to recovering that child alive,†added Defenbaugh.

 

Paul Coggins is the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Coggins says the court’s ruling pushes the envelope on privacy issues. “Does that mean officers now have the right to search through your phone, search through your search history, your photographs, your e-mails and the rest, because it could all be wiped clean,†asked Coggins.

 

Many critics are asking the same question. They call the ruling an invasion of privacy that far outweighs the needs of law enforcement.

 

Both Defenbaugh and Coggins agree that the case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme court.

 

My link

[Bangkoktraveler]

  

 

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:

 

- be a natural born citizen of the United States

- be at least thirty-five years old;

- have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

 

Washington and the others were qualified by having been born in what became the US. Presumably, Hamilton was not since he was born in the West Indies.

 

Doesn't matter where Romney's father was born, since Romney was born in the US. The Constitution says nothing about one's ancestors!

 

 

To the Republicans citizenship is an important issue.

 

The rhetoric over Obama's birth certificate is a major issue.

 

Now back to Romney: his family went to Mexico to leave permanently.

 

They build Mormon communities and had all intentions of living there for ever.

But then the revolution came and they had to flee.

If Romney's Mexican born father never got nationalized then it may

impact Romney's Republican position on illegals.

[Bangkoktraveler]

  

 

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:

 

1.- be a natural born citizen of the United States

2. - be at least thirty-five years old;

3. - have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

 

Washington and the others were qualified by having been born in what became the US. Presumably, Hamilton was not since he was born in the West Indies.

 

Doesn't matter where Romney's father was born, since Romney was born in the US. The Constitution says nothing about one's ancestors!

 

 

Washington only met the 2nd requirement.

[Flashermac]

NOBODY met the third requirement, until July 1790. Therefore, Washington's inauguration in April 1789 was illegal! That makes John Adams the first president of the United States.

 

But as far as I know, Washington was natural born.

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

Secret Service agent: Clinton’s staff rude, Hillary aloof

 

 

In a breach of tradition, a former U.S. Secret Service agent has self-published a book that savages the Clinton White House staff as arrogant and rude, suggests former first lady Hillary Clinton was aloof and charges that Bill Clinton endangered himself and agents for a “totally pointless photo op†on the South Korea-North Korea border.

 

In several anecdotes, former agent Dan Emmett revealed that Clinton’s young staff had “fundamental traits of rudeness and arrogance†that teetered on the verge of being dangerous at times. “Most of these youngsters were from wealthy families, and many viewed Secret Services agents as the hired help,†he writes in “Within Arms’s Length,†an autobiography that provides new details of the inner Secret Service.

 

 

In one case he told of an unnamed Clinton staffer who challenged a KGB agent during a 1993 presidential visit to Russia “as if he were dealing with a Wackenhut security officer in Toledo.â€

In another, he wrote of a female staffer who wouldn’t listen to Emmett’s security advice. “She stared at me with a look as if her father had just told her she couldn’t go to the mall with her friends and get a tattoo or body piercing,†he wrote. “My patient attempts to reason were met with childlike emotion born of a past where no one in authority--probably beginning with her parents--had ever said no to her about anything.â€

 

On the first lady, he describes her as aloof, someone who didn’t say “thank you†to agents while the president and former first daughter Chelsea typically did. He told Secrets, “she was not as out-going or cordial.â€

 

He also wrote of how Clinton walked too far down the bridge separating the Koreas during another 1993 trip. “No one seemed to know if President Clinton grasped how potentially dangerous this stop on the bridge was,†he writes. “The Secret Service obviously believed this move unwise,†he penned, adding, “nevertheless, he was POTUS and he wanted to stand on the bridge, so stand on the bridge he would do.â€

 

Emmett, who worked the White House detail during the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administration and is now a teacher at Auburn University, told us that he wasn’t dishing any secrets, though agents are urged not to write about the people they protect. He informed the agency about his book, which said it didn’t get an advance copy.

 

Still, the service is not happy with the anecdotes in the book. “We do stress to all our employees the importance of not sharing anecdotes about the personal, private moments of the protectees,†said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan. “It causes concern because we don’t want to erode the trust that we have with our protectees.â€

 

My link

[Steve]

I can't see them pulling off the birth certificate fraud. Too difficult to do. But if he did actually get a scholarship as a foreign student (Indonesian), that would certainly say something about his honesty and integrity. If I were going to go after him for anything, that would be it ... verifying or refuting that claim.

 

Was that scholorship as a kid? For me, you get a pass for anything done under say age 25 if you're running for president and you're presumably over 45 years old.

 

Malcolm X led an honorably life as an adult but was a pimp and drug pusher as a kid. There is such a thing as redemption.

 

If you're a regular person, you've done something as a kid. Smoked pot. DUI. Drunken frat boy stuff. Arrested for trespassing because you and some chick were pool hopping skinny dipping. I'd vote for a guy like that than some boyscout who never did anything right. Was part of Campus Crusades for Christ (hate saying that and feel guilty) and did nothing bad his whole life. That person can't identify with the average person and is judgmental.

[Steve]

http://now.msn.com/living/0307-pat-robertson-pot.aspx

Pat likes pot.

Good news potheads, Pat Robertson is on your side

[Steve]

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhn343j09wV8RhK4m9

Dumbazz Of The Week: Pittsburgh Thug Robs A Girl For $60.. Then Calls Her Up To See If She Wanted To Go Out!

[Steve]

http://news.yahoo.com/case-let-thousands-calif-criminals-vote-193650198.html

The nonpartisan League of Women Voters and two prisoners' rights groups sued California elections officials on Wednesday, claiming that tens of thousands of criminals being shifted to county jails and community supervision should be eligible to vote.

The state's new realignment law that took effect in October is sending lower-level offenders to county jails instead of to state prisons, where they are barred from voting. It also ends parole for many ex-convicts, substituting a similar program called "post-release community supervision" instead.

The plaintiffs said more than 85,000 offenders who are no longer in state prison or on parole should be allowed to vote in the June primary election. They are challenging a memo from Secretary of State Debra Bowen's office that said people who are sentenced to county jail or supervision under realignment are ineligible to vote under California law.

California is one of 48 states and the District of Columbia that prohibit felons while they are incarcerated. The exceptions are Maine and Vermont.

According to The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization, 35 states ban parolees from voting and 30 of the same states bar voting by people on probation as well.

 

My view is while you're still paying for your crime to society some rights are suspended. Freedom and the right to vote mainly.

 

However, I feel that after your parole, your right to vote should be restored. You paid your debt to society. We give back all the rights except one. The right to vote. Seems silly that as an ex-con you can technically still be voted in as president but you can't vote for one.

 

Yes it means a former rapist or murderer can vote. But it also means the guy who gets caught with pot can vote as well.

 

Either you have paid your debt to society or you haven't.

[dean]

How about the right to run for office? In Missouri, an elected official was removed from a county office because he had a felony conviction (said he assaulted someone for spitting on his wife). I'd be in favour of allowing convicted felons to run for government offices in most cases. One case I would not allow felons to run is if they were convicted of trying to manipulate the political system or abuse of power while in office.