What country is the closest to the U.S. constitution?

The comments on hotair before the video seems to be right on. The video is not bad.

The democrat video is absolutely perfect for the platform they are running on right now. It covers all the details in perfect harmony, it didn't miss one bit of their platform for this next series of elections. I just don't see how they fit it all in one 30 second spot!!!

 

It's mind boggling how perfectly it sums it all up. Indeed! Makes me want to go vote democrat right now.

 

I prefer democrats too, they steal less efficiently

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x5K60u9_84&NR

I found this interesting....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/15/do1502.xml

Steyn said: Forget Europe. Europe is doomed.

 

That was interesting. Muslims seem hold very conservative (republican) views for "ideal" society. They're against liberal government, gays, sex before marriage, etc.

How ironic

 

Did you try that hard to miss the point?

 

In a democratic age, you can't buck demography - except through civil war. The Yugoslavs figured that out. In the 30 years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 per cent to 31 per cent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 per cent to 44 per cent.

That says everything.

I'm a believer that cultural shifts have to reasoned/reasonable. The balkans was a very lucid vision of what happens when they're are not. Most Christian areas in the Balkans were descently well-off, while muslims were producing like rabbits. The muslims discontent started off quite a long time ago, when the realized how bad-off their part of the balkans was getting. Reminds me of France, actually.

Then it was just a matter of back and forth political power,...till conflict would ensue..

France changed their laws (which seem to sound better than ours...at the moment). I'm not sure if it will get worse there or not. Atleast they recongnized that immigration had to change. Now it's suppose to be more targetted towards educated individuals.

 

American Liberty Died on October 17, 2006

Habeas corpus -- it's your most fundamental legal right, your right to go to a court and get an order requiring the government to prove that it is holding you in prison with proper legal authority to do so. Without that right, one necessarily lives in a dictatorship. pResident Bush on October 17, 2006 signed a bill repealing that law, meaning that the administration need not comply, or show compliance with law any more with regard to who is to be imprisoned.

You are now guilty, until proven guilty
While the "law" supposedly applies just to terrorism cases, that doesn't prevent it from ending the rule of law in the United States for our newly all-powerful Executive. This is true, not just because terrorism is construed so broadly in the prohibition of "material support" for terrorism, but because the administration NEED NOT PROVE IT'S REALLY TERRORISM because they don't need to answer to any court in the land at any time.

Popular traitors agree
Even "Justice" Scalia wrote in the Hamdan case that "the very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive." People, that very core of liberty died on October 17, 2006 with the signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and its elimination of habeas corpus.

Torture is now rule of the land
This assault on our liberties also legalized torture wholesale. While misleadingly purporting to prohibit a few forms of torture, upon full analysis it prohibits none. But hey, who's going to know since your relatives won't be able to find out where you are anyway?

There's NOTHING in the law that distinguishes between "terrorists" of any nationality, nor does it define the intent it claims to prevent. Ultimately, the government now doesn't need to comply with habeas and show that you are guilty anyway. At most, they just think to themselves "this guy's a terrorist" and you disappear into the torture chamber with no right to be heard from, even indirectly through your lawyer, which you now have no enforceable right to anyway.

Dude, where's my neighbor?
Even public opinion will likely not catch up with this because people will just disappear and who knows, maybe the missing person just went off on a lark, or to start a new life somewhere. This is exactly the same method used in all dictatorships to suppress opposition, including Nazi Germany.

Consequently, on October 17, 2006 freedom died in the United States of America. We now live in a dictatorship. We live in a dictatorship even if you think George W. Bush will be a wise and benevolent king, or dictator. It is defined as the possession of absolute power as opposed to checks and balances.

Put differences aside
Professor Turley (Constitutional Law) has said that people "really have no idea how significant this is." Turley says we now have an "absolute ruler" which is really just another way of saying dictatorship. He's not kidding. I'm not kidding. You must consider the importance of this issue is at a WHOLE OTHER LEVEL. It's not an "issue" that we form polite activist groups to respond to.

The Executive Branch now has full discretion to imprison anybody they want to without charge or trial or bail and there will be nothing anybody can do except beg the King. In effect, there's no rule of law applicable to the administration. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN LAW was essentially repealed, because the administration need not prove to anybody that it has complied with the law by indefinitely detaining you, your relative or anyone else.

Keith Olbermann's commentary, with Professor Jonathan Turley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

The country and the world are shocked
There are a lot of people shocked, many crying, millions disturbed, millions more waking up. It's always hard to be among the first to know and to wait for the rest of the country to catch up, but somebody has to be in that position. Because YOU are among the first of millions to wake up and hear this news, send out the message to others.

Right now there is no media echo besides Olbermann to get the word out and reinforce it. But there will be. This situation of legalizing torture and eliminating habeas corpus is WAY WAY WAY "out there" in terms of extreme.

If we react only in fear, whether fear of Gitmo or fear of torture or fear of terrorists, the dark curtain of dictatorship will descend further and their power will consolidate. In the end, Americans will only be able to regain their liberties when each joins the struggle for freedom on their own soil.

 

Blame America First - Liberal rule number one:

If you make the font big and bold when copying/pasting op-ed commentary that offers nothing more than speculative opinion, it must be true!

ST, go home. You've lost your liberty to post on the forum. You've lost your liberty to stop on the way home to fill up with cheap gas. You've lost your liberty to order pizza tonight, to watch TV programming of your choice, to take a trip, to make airline reservations, stay in a hotel, order an ipod from Amazon, to receive electricity to power your home, to buy groceries, to have a cell phone.

There are no liberties left. Go home, disconnect all power to your home, sit and wait for "the man" to come and get you!

 

It's a good thing that Bush has a fondness for calling himself king then!

 

Therein lies the deficiency -- just the fact alone that there remains differences of interpretation to this new "law" shows the inherent danger. The "law" is now open to the interpretation by a single person, GW Bush, the decider, your new king. Go to him and kneel before his greatness, err, greatass.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000 -- George W. Bush

 

Which just shows your inability to either:
1) understand the context
2) have a sense of humor

Pick one.

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121800/gen_1218007459.shtml

All you are doing is making yourself look stupid with these out of the world comments

 

There is no difference in interpretation of the law. You simply relied on op-ed opinion to blame America first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

Further:

OMG, terrorists have lost rights they never had, and ST is upset?

So the question remains, are you a terrorist or a terrorist supporter? Because if you are, you *should* be worried. If not, then you have nothing to worry about.

Don't forget, you've lost your liberty to post, so we understand that you no longer have that right!

 

I guess this goes for Adam, Lincoln, and Roosevelt....they all dissolved Habeas corpus for a short period of time in our history. I find the posts you seem to be putting in many threads...a bit overemphasized. It will find it's way through the courts and it will find it among different congresses...

I wouldn't worry as much as you do.... that's just me.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."

"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

"Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said.

While the MCA 2006 law implicitly grants authority to the government to detain those who fall within the bill's ridiculously over-broad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant", you are forgetting that every bill Bush signs off on, he also issues a signing statement where he basically says he alone will decide how any particular law is to be dispensed.

Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Overall, does it sound like we can depend upon Bush to be our beneficent king?

 

You've never heard of executive orders, have you?

In fact, when Koizumi came to visit a few months ago, bush even said "the highlight of his visit will be paying his respects to the King" !

Incredible!

 

Lol, the ACLU? Besides CAIR, is there any organization in the US more bent on the destruction of our country?

 

bah.. not this again. He was talking about elvis and you know it.

 

Dammit. You are ruining my fun! Of course I know that. I was making a point (or trying to)