Wrong-think

[Kathyp]

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Ffbi-is-allegedly-purging-employees-with-conservative-views-rep-jordan_4522044.html

Short article.  We need a really big push broom for this agency.  After what they have done to Trump and Trump supporters, will anyone have the stones?  Wasn't scaring people the point?  Seems so...

[Kathyp]

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/3516750-how-the-fbi-uses-laws-to-spy-on-foreign-terrorists-to-spy-on-you/

Section 702 has become increasingly controversial since its passage in 2008. Congress passed it only to authorize the surveillance of non-Americans outside the United States. It was promoted as an authority designed to counter terrorists. Instead, it is being used in Orwellian ways that make America a little more like Russia or China.

Through declassified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions and other government disclosures, the public has learned that Americans? personal information is also swept up by what intelligence agencies call ?incidental? collection. After our information ends up in government databases, the FBI intentionally searches it to learn more about Americans, our communications, and what we?re up to. This means the FBI can warrantlessly obtain, review and use the private communications of Americans who are not suspected of criminal activity or any wrongdoing.

[Acebird]

Apparently you have never been on FB.  FB is routinely searched by corporate America during job interviews.
I have no fear of big brother collecting data.  When there is a crime, mass shooting for instance the information is hardly used to prevent it.  For all other lesser crimes they may have the data but for some reason can't find it to catch criminals.  Nothing is more frustrating for a small business to have video of criminal action catching them on live feed and the end result is for the person to be let free to do it again.  Doesn't make sense.

[Kathyp]

you addressed several things.  Businesses do pay for info from all kinds of places.  That's what those agreements are about that none of us read.

The government is a different thing.  The government is restricted from accessing info on US persons without a warrant.  Period.  End of story. 
The way they are getting around it is by collecting info on people not covered by the law and extending that out to 3 or 4 places in contacts.  For instance, My brother might talk to my sister in England.  NSA can collect info on that call if they want to.  They are supposed to mask the US person and only collect info on the international person.  Instead, they have collect info on the US person, the contacts of the US person, and out to the contacts of the contacts.  In a number of cases that we know of, they have unmasked the US persons without cause.

Additionally, they have collected metadata on millions of US citizens and their excuse is that because it is metadata and not the conversations, it's OK.  Metadata can be used for all kinds of things that the federal government is prohibited from doing without a warrant, and by extension, is prohibited from collecting because they do not have a warrant. 

You may be fine with the government doing that, but they are breaking the law when they do.  I suspect your ease with this depends on who is in office.

Businesses have a right to use surveillance and they have a right to expect law enforcement and the courts to uphold the law. 

[Acebird]

In my view the only way to have a heads up on these nut cases shooting innocent people up is to have some way to ease drop from some form of law enforcement.  We have laws on what is good and bad so if you are not doing something bad I don't see a problem.  I think it is more of a problem when you know someone is doing something bad and nothing is done about it.  That hurts the innocent.  Nothing makes my blood boil more than protecting the guilty.

[BeeMaster2]

Ace, 
Nothing makes my blood boil more than protecting the guilty.


You mean lawyers?🤔

[Kathyp]

In my view the only way to have a heads up on these nut cases shooting innocent people up is to have some way to ease drop from some form of law enforcement.  We have laws on what is good and bad so if you are not doing something bad I don't see a problem.  I think it is more of a problem when you know someone is doing something bad and nothing is done about it.  That hurts the innocent.  Nothing makes my blood boil more than protecting the guilty.

1st, the number of people who "shoot innocent people" is small.  Spectacular, but small.  Most of them already make public in some way, what they intend to do.  No spying is required.  Only that those who see those messages report them, and those who take the reports actually act on them.  It would also help if law enforcement and schools reported/acted those who are mentally ill or a danger...or like the guy a while ago in TX who'd been booted from the service but never reported.  For this reason, I am in favor of having juvenile records as part of the background check. 

Preemptive spying is something that some countries do.  China, NK, Russia, etc.  We have the presumption of innocence here.  We also have a right to expect privacy in our papers and persons.  The government does not have the right to spy on us just because they think we might do something.  This is where the FBI is far into the gray often.  To infiltrate or investigate because they have credible info that something bad is going on is one thing.  To instigate and encourage bad things so they can arrest someone is another thing.  In the meantime, they have missed many actual dangers while doing Whitmer type things for the public splash.

If you are fine being spied on, there are any number of places you can go.  Here, we have laws that are designed to protect us from the govnerment in which you seem to have such great faith. 

[Acebird]

Here, we have laws that are designed to protect us from the govnerment in which you seem to have such great faith.

Faith in government?  Not hardly, it is driven by money.  However a fear of law enforcement that I have done something seriously wrong resulting in prison?  No fear at all.  I have a fear of law enforcement that there are too many bad eggs in the ranks because they lean toward the macho instead of intelligence.  I do not have a brown skin and came from European decent so the bad eggs are not targeting me.  I have yet to come across a white person who is concerned about the laws designed to protect us for brown people because they are not followed anyway.  I think you will find that those white people who worry about government oversight are guilty of doing something wrong.  In a metropolitan area there are cameras everywhere.  You should conduct your actions as if big brother is watching.  The camera is the only real deterrent for bad cops not the laws that protect us.

[Acebird]

Ace, 
Nothing makes my blood boil more than protecting the guilty.


You mean lawyers?🤔

Lawyers are the courts politicians.  It is a game for them and they get compensated dearly when they win.  What protects the guilty is the laws that Kathy speaks of.  Unfortunately these laws are not applied equally.

[Kathyp]

Faith in government?  Not hardly, it is driven by money.  However a fear of law enforcement that I have done something seriously wrong resulting in prison?  No fear at all.  I have a fear of law enforcement that there are too many bad eggs in the ranks because they lean toward the macho instead of intelligence.  I do not have a brown skin and came from European decent so the bad eggs are not targeting me.  I have yet to come across a white person who is concerned about the laws designed to protect us for brown people because they are not followed anyway.  I think you will find that those white people who worry about government oversight are guilty of doing something wrong.  In a metropolitan area there are cameras everywhere.  You should conduct your actions as if big brother is watching.  The camera is the only real deterrent for bad cops not the laws that protect us.

I used to live in your fantasy land.  Then I watched the federal agencies being weaponized against political opponents.  Cameras are something that people know about and by frequenting places with cameras, they give consent to be filmed. NSA getting into your private info without cause and a warrant is not something to which people give either conscious or implied consent.  Not to mention the fact that it is illegal. 

You may not have noticed but our government is talking about people of particular political and religious beliefs as being a danger to the country.  Our press is talking about those people needing to be arrested, jailed, and "deprogrammed".  Our justice dept is jailing people and holding them for misdemeanor charges, not allowing them to bail out, and prosecuting them as if they committed a felony.  At the same time, they are refusing to prosecute people who actually committed assault, arson, b&e, and all kinds of other crimes, because they are a useful tool for the leftist.
What people are willing to say out loud, they are willing to eventually do.

You think you are safe because you are white and leftist?  Maybe for now...

What protects the guilty is the laws that Kathy speaks of.  Unfortunately these laws are not applied equally.

Now you are getting it.

[Acebird]

Not to mention the fact that it is illegal. 

What is legal for 50 years can change by 5 conservatives without changing one word in the constitution.  No point in dwelling on words written on paper.

[Kathyp]

What is legal for 50 years can change by 5 conservatives without changing one word in the constitution.  No point in dwelling on words written on paper.

What belonged to the states was changed by the court.  Now that court has given it back to the states.  The SCOTUS does not make law.  It interprets law.  It does not find rights.  It upholds rights according to the law.

If the SCOTUS could not change prior rulings you'd still have things like "separate but equal" .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

be sure to look at the abrogated decisions as well.

Both leftists and legislators have gotten used to having the court do their job.  You want something?  convince the people.  Legislators, if you are afraid to put your name to a law, to bad.  You get what the court hands down...and that goes for both parties.

[Michael Bush]

And let's not forget we would still have Dred Scott...

[Acebird]

You want something?  convince the people.

The people are already convinced, world wide.  The politicians with an ounce of upper hand took advantage installing a political court.  It won't last, there will be bloodshed.  One judge got it right, there was no need to make the change.  The ruling hinges on one or two bullets.

[Acebird]

1st, the number of people who "shoot innocent people" is small.

Not in mass shootings.

[Kathyp]

Not in mass shootings.

Most "mass shootings" are gan related.  Those that are not, like schools and businesses, are few.  Remember, we are a country of over 350 million people. 

The people are already convinced, world wide.  The politicians with an ounce of upper hand took advantage installing a political court.  It won't last, there will be bloodshed.  One judge got it right, there was no need to make the change.  The ruling hinges on one or two bullets.

The court was political before.  why is the left so afraid of having Justices that uphold the Constitution?  There is an answer to that and it is that the left has depended on leftist courts for what they want.  Rarely do they have to make the case to the people.  They just find sympathetic justices and like magic, they have what they wanted.

As for abortion, I agree that most people make at least a moral compromise for the 1st trimester.  After that, support drops dramatically.  It was a ban after 15 weeks in MS that took this case to SCOTUS.  If the people pushing for abortion up to the time of birth had not taken this to court, there would have been no case for SCOTUS to hear. 

I'd be a little careful about what I post if I were you Ace.  Those spies you love might not love you back. 

[Kathyp]

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/#more-190516

This is pretty good.  I have become a fan although I don't agree with him on everything.  His arguments are well thought out and referenced and he knows Constitutional law.

[Acebird]

I'd be a little careful about what I post if I were you Ace.

Why?  Are the conservatives after freedom of speech next?  You really should watch Handmaids Tail.

[Kathyp]

Why?  Are the conservatives after freedom of speech next?  You really should watch Handmaids Tail.

I should moderate my views based on a fiction series?     That comment explains a lot!

[Michael Bush]

>Are the conservatives after freedom of speech next?

Conservatives after free speech?  Maybe at one time that was a threat.  Right now it is the left that is after free speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a speedy trial &c. &c. &c.