http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/237229.html
"At first glance, he looks like every other congressman in the Canon Building. His suit is dark. His tie is striped. He is convivial with his colleagues, who genuinely like him. But there is something different about Ron Paul.
You can hear congressmen when they walk down the hall, strutting their own importance. After all, there are regulations to be implemented, special interests to serve, a teetering American Empire that would collapse without their management. They wear black or cordovan leather shoes -- captoes, wingtips and brogues -- clacking down the hall, their bellies full of medium-rare steak from Capital Grille. They are surrounded by ambitious interns and legislative aides. They fiddle with their BlackBerries. You can't miss them tromping out of the elevators.
Ron Paul is easy to overlook. He takes the stairs; he does not have an entourage. You can't hear him coming because he's wearing plain black tennis shoes. In a bag he carries a can of soup that he will heat for himself in the microwave in his office. Beneath pictures of Austrian economists Frederick Von Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, he will eat his lunch alone and in peace.
What is the purpose of Ron Paul's candidacy for the presidency of the United States? Some longshots run because their egos demand it. Others want to raise their lecture fees. Some run because they have plenty of money and nothing better to do. Following a flood of viewer requests, the Texas congressman recently appeared on Fox News to explain himself. His answer was buoyant though laconic: "I want to be president because I have this dream. I'd like to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic." His answer was also revolutionary.
Paul's doggedness in advancing the causes of individual responsibility and limited government could intimidate almost anyone who clings to the label "conservative" or "libertarian." Perhaps that is why he avoids those abused designations and calls himself a "constitutionalist." His philosophy is simple: "no government intervention, not in personal life, not in economic life, not in affairs of other nations."
Naturally he opposes almost everything Congress does. The physician cum congressman earned the nickname "Dr. No" early on. His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the "Ron Paul exemption" entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption.
When Paul does propose legislation, it is simple, direct and radical. He's compiled an impressive list of bills that remain ignored to this day. HR 1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations. HR 776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception. HR 1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.
His cheerful consistency doesn't end there. Paul not only votes against nearly all government spending, he has refused to be the beneficiary of it as well. As a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He accepted no money from Medicare or Medicaid, often working for free for needy patients. With his support, his five children finished school without subsidized federal student loans. He has refused a congressional pension."
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Paul’s profile on the rise
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Jun/20070615News009.asp
" After two decades of standing in his own rhetorical realm in Congress, Ron Paul is finally gaining some attention.
● Q: Your presence on the Internet has been a prime topic of conversation. You’re a 71-year-old physician from Texas, but on one site you’ve become a more searched-for name than Paris Hilton. How did that come about?
● Q: You ran as the Libertarian Party’s nominee in 1988, and you still possess a lot of Libertarian tendencies. On the issue of Iraq, you favor a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do you think it could be feasible to implement this if you were president? ● Q: You support returning the country’s currency back to the gold standard. Is that correct? ● Q: As president, what would you do to change course in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Especially when the United States has become so active in the regional disputes? ● Q: Despite some interest in your campaign, few political observers think you have a serious chance of winning the Republican nomination. Are they wrong? And if so, why?
" After two decades of standing in his own rhetorical realm in Congress, Ron Paul is finally gaining some attention.
 |
| AP photo |
| Republican presidential hopeful U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, talks to reporters June 5 after the Republican presidential primary debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. Paul is in Kansas City this week for the National Right to Life Convention. |
Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, is making an impact in his second bid for the U.S. presidency. The combination of a rabid Internet presence and appearances on nationally televised debates has raised Paul’s profile.
The attention hasn’t translated into traction in polls, though. Paul usually registers in the single digits against other Republican contenders. He’s a long shot to win the nomination.
Paul is among a number of presidential candidates, including Democrat John Edwards and Republican Mitt Romney - who have visited Missouri in recent days. Paul is in Kansas City this week for the National Right to Life Convention.
The Tribune interviewed Paul by phone, asking him about his popularity on the Internet, his stance on foreign policy and his chances for pulling off the upset of a lifetime in the race for the White House.
| Coming Sunday Ron Paul’s comments have hit a nerve among opponents but also struck a chord with the public. Read more about the polarizing presidential hopeful |
A: I think the ideas of liberty are very young historically. It really had a burst of enthusiasm with our revolution. If you look at all of history, the notion that government should be minimal in size and that individuals should rule their own lives - it’s a real modern idea. And I think young people just naturally go in that direction. What they’re realizing is that they’re being delivered a horrendous deal and a lot of obligations. And all of a sudden, when they hear someone say something what they’ve been thinking about, I think they respond very favorably. I’m really happy about it. So I think the age of the individual delivering the message is irrelevant if the message is young and exciting. In contrast, the ideas of big government and controlling other people’s lives and invading other countries - that’s been around for thousands of years. And it’s old and ancient, and it fails. And young people are more idealistic, and I think that’s one of the reasons they are looking at our campaign really carefully.
A: If you take some sort of entitlement program in this country that’s well entrenched and people are very much adapted to, that would require changes in the law. But if you had a president with a different attitude about foreign intervention, that individual could start backing away. The president is in charge of the Navy - we wouldn’t have to have our Navy in the Persian Gulf and near Iran, threatening Iran to behave the way we want or else. So there’s a lot of things you can do as commander in chief of troops. You could start bringing troops home. How long do we expect our people to pay for protecting the borders between North and South Korea while avoiding the borders between Mexico and the United States?
A: Not exactly. I’m for supporting the Constitution, and the Constitution still says only gold and silver can be legal tender. … The reasons I don’t like to say "go back" is because there were shortcomings in the original gold standard. What I reject, and the founders totally rejected, was a paper standard - creating money out of thin air. Spending money you don’t have. Printing it up. Causing inflation. Causing bubbles. Causing recessions. And wiping out the middle class. The middle class is getting poorer as the wealthy class is getting wealthier.
A: Well, I think we shouldn’t be involved. I don’t think we should tell Israel what to do, and I don’t think we should finance all of Israel’s military activities. We just get blamed for if they get involved and Palestinians get mistreated. It’s our fault because we gave the money? At least all of the Palestinians and the Arabs will blame us. So I would say that the founders were correct. I think Ronald Reagan was absolutely correct when he pulled the troops out of Lebanon. He said he didn’t realize how irrational they were in their politics over there, and he said we had to change our policy. So he intervened, the Marines were killed, he said it was a mistake, and he left. I support his position on that and the founders’ position. And I just think that our interference hurts Israel.
A: I don’t think anybody knows. I don’t know what the future will bring, and neither do they. They don’t know if I will, and I can’t say that I know I will. But, all I can say is so far, so good. I mean, six months ago, if you would have said to me, ‘Well, Ron, if you do this, we’re probably going to have a million people visit Web sites and look into and inquire about your candidacy.’ And if you add up all the hits on all the Web sites, I’m sure it must be that many. Because we see tens of thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of people getting involved. I would have said, ‘No, that doesn’t sound likely.’ But it turned out it is. And every day it’s more. So, I would say that only time will answer that question."
=======SNIP------------------
Ron Paul, as usual, gives a good account on these interviews.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Photography of cops is not a crime, but filming of cops is a felony?
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/118159351049730.xml&coll=1
"Filming a traffic stop doesn't fit felony category
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Brian D. Kelly, 18, of Carlisle likely isn't the only the person around central Pennsylvania who was unaware that recording a police officer during the commission of a traffic stop constitutes a felony criminal act.
Kelly, who says one of his hobbies is making movies, had his camera rolling last month when the pickup truck he was riding in was pulled over by a Carlisle police officer for traffic violations. About 20 minutes into the police stop, the officer noticed that Kelly had a camera pointed at him and told him to turn it off, which he did. Kelly was then charged with felony wiretapping, which carries a penalty of up to seven years in state prison. The young man spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison before his mother posted her house to bail him out.
The logic of interpreting the wiretap law to make it a felony to record police carrying out their duties escapes us, given that increasingly police themselves record traffic stops. In addition, police are regularly recorded by the news media with their acquiescence or permission. And some notable incidents of police using excessive force have been recorded on video.
Even Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed seemed to concede that there was some ambiguity in the law, that "often these cases come down to questions of intent." There were also suggestions that a solution might be to allow Kelly to plead to a lesser charge, an all-too common gambit when an arrest is over the top, as is this one surely is.
This young man's life should not be permanently tarnished by this incident, one that hardly rises to the level of criminality. In any event, it is time for the Legislature to fine tune the law to prevent future miscarriages of justice. "
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=199
"WIRETAPPING & ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN PENNSYLVANIA
By: Eric M. NoonanAssistant Executive Deputy Attorney GeneralOrganized Crime & Narcotics
The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal.
For the purposes of this article, "electronic surveillance" shall include the interception (to include recording) of electronic (digital pagers, computers/e-mail, fax machines), oral (face-to-face conversations where there is an expectation of privacy/non-interruption) and wire (telephone conversations) communications. This general rule, and certain limited exceptions thereto, appear in Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701, et seq.
Some 41 other states nationwide have their own wiretapping/electronic surveillance statutes. These statutes follow either a "one party consent" or "two/all party consent" rule. The former creates an exception to the foregoing general prohibition if one of the parties to the intercepted communication is aware of, and has consented to the interception. The latter reflects a more restrictive rule -- that being that both, or all parties to the intercepted communication must be aware of and have consented to its interception. Pennsylvania falls into the latter, more restrictive category.
In addition to the various state statutes, the federal government has its own wiretapping/electronic surveillance statute at 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. The federal statute is of the less-restrictive "one party consent" variety. This federal law is what authorizes the various states to enact their own statutes. Generally speaking, in order for state statutes to be deemed lawful, they must comport with the constraints of the federal statute. The state statutes can be even more restrictive than the federal statutes, however, they cannot be less restrictive. In addition, there must be compliance with the constraints of the United States Constitution and the respective state constitutions.
There are certain limited exceptions to the general prohibition against electronic surveillance. The exceptions exist for so-called "providers of wire or electronic communication service" (e.g., telephone companies and the like) and law enforcement in the furtherance of criminal investigative activities. With the limited exception of telemarketers, there is no sweeping exception for the private sector absent all parties' awareness and consent to the interception of the communication.
As to the providers' exception -- this generally relates to ensuring the proper operation of their facilities and protection of themselves and their customers from fraudulent or illegal use of their facilities. As to the law enforcement exception -- interceptions can only be undertaken in the furtherance of a criminal investigation. Further, the police do not have an unfettered ability to do interceptions. Their authority is tempered in situations where one of the parties has consented to law enforcement's eavesdropping by the fact that they must get the prior approval of a designated prosecutor.
Further, in the event the conversation is expected to take place in a home, a probable cause-based court order is required in addition to the attorney's approval. In the event the interception proposed by law enforcement is without any of the participants' knowledge or consent, then a court must issue an order based not only on a finding of probable cause, but also a judicial finding that the technique is necessary -- that more traditional/less intrusive investigative techniques would fail or would be fruitless to continue, or would be too dangerous to try. As to the telemarketers' exception -- interception can only be undertaken for training, quality control or business monitoring purposes.
The majority of the Act is devoted to the law enforcement exception. In that regard, the Act provides law enforcement with five investigative techniques: 1) consensual interception of electronic, oral or wire communications (where one of the parties to the communication is aware of, and has consented to law enforcement's electronic eavesdropping); 2) records/information access (i.e. toll records/long distance billing information subscriber information, etc.); 3) mobile tracking devices (electronic tracking of the movement of a vehicle, parcel, etc.); 4) pen register/trap & trace device and telecommunication identification interception device (devices that provide law enforcement with the outgoing numbers dialed from a targeted telephone facility, source of incoming calls to a targeted telephone facility and the electronic serial number/mobile identification number assigned to a cellular telephone facility, respectively); and
5) nonconsensual interception of electronic, oral or wire communications (where none of participants in the communication are aware of or have consented to law enforcement's electronic eavesdropping).
As to 1), consensuals -- the technique must receive the prior approval of the District Attorney, Attorney General or an Assistant DA/Deputy AG before being undertaken. Further, if the technique is to occur in the "home" of anyone other than the consenting party, then a probable cause-based court order is also required. As to 2), records/information access -- either a subpoena, search warrant, court order or the consent of the customer/subscriber to the facility in question must be obtained before law enforcement can access the material. As to 3), mobile tracking -- a court order is required before the technique may be undertaken. As to 4), pen register, etc. -- a probable cause-based court order is required. As to 5) nonconsensuals -- a probable cause-based court order is required finding not only that certain crimes have been, will be or are being committed, but also that there is a need for law enforcement's use of this technique.
Disclosure/use of contents of communications obtained hereby is authorized only in extremely limited circumstances. For criminal investigative purposes, an investigative or law enforcement officer who, pursuant to the proper performance of his/her duties has acquired knowledge of the contents of a communication, may disclose such contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer so long as such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the duties of both the disclosing and receiving officer. Likewise, such investigative or law enforcement officer may use such information (which may implicitly include further disclosure) as appropriate to the proper performance of that officer's duties (such as disclosure to a judge in an affidavit for a search or arrest warrant). Such contents may also be disclosed while giving testimony under oath in any criminal proceeding or in quasi-criminal, forfeiture or professional disciplinary proceedings. Beyond the foregoing parameters, disclosure/use of intercepted communications is prohibited with both civil and criminal penalties.
A person's (private citizen or law enforcement) violation of this statute can arise in the following four general areas: 1) he/she can unlawfully intercept or procure another to unlawfully intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication; 2) he/she can unlawfully disclose the contents of an electronic, oral or wire communication; 3) he/she can unlawfully use the contents of an electronic, oral or wire communication; and 4) he/she can unlawfully advertise, sell or possess an "electronic, mechanical or other device(s)" which, by its design renders it primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of electronic, oral or wire communications. The violation of any of these provisions constitutes a felony of the third degree (and yes, this includes the prohibition of a private citizen from tapping his/her own phone and/or bugging his/her own home).
As noted above, law enforcement personnel cannot electronically eavesdrop without proper authority (i.e. prior independent review by either a designated prosecutor or the judiciary). In addition to the criminal sanctions for violating the Act, other sanctions that can be brought against law enforcement for violating the Wiretap Act which consist of: 1) suppression of evidence gained as a result of any unlawful interception (or evidence derived therefrom); 2) a civil suit brought by an "aggrieved person" (one whose communication was intercepted or one against whom the interception was directed) for reasonable attorneys fees and money damages; and 3) A civil suit brought by an aggrieved person to have the investigative or law enforcement officer who allegedly violated the Act removed from their law enforcement position.
In summary, Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act is all about privacy -- the expectation of privacy we have in our communications. However, it recognizes law enforcement's periodic need to intercept communications to obtain critical evidence in criminal investigations to protect the public. In that regard, the Act strikes a balance by imposing certain requirements on law enforcement via the prior review by a prosecutor and/or judge as explained above. In protecting privacy, the constraints of the Act apply to everyone, law enforcement and private citizens alike."
In addition to the above, here is the actual wording of the ACT
http://members.aol.com/DKM1/18.Cp.57.html
"SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 5701. Short title of chapter.§ 5702. Definitions.
§ 5701. Short title of chapter.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act."
§ 5702. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Aggrieved person."
A person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.
"Aural transfer."
A transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception.
"Communication common carrier."
Any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in intrastate, interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in intrastate, interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy; however, a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, while so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.
"Contents."
As used with respect to any wire, electronic or oral communication, is any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
"Court."
The Superior Court. For the purposes of Subchapter C only, the term shall mean the court of common pleas.
"Electronic communication."
Any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system, except:
The radio portion of a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit.
Any wire or oral communication.
Any communication made through a tone-only paging device.
Any communication from a tracking device (as defined in this section).
"Electronic communication service."
Any service which provides to users the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.
"Electronic communication system."
Any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-optical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications.
"Electronic, mechanical or other device."
Any device or apparatus, including an induction coil, that can be used to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication other than:
Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business, or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business, or being used by a communication common carrier in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties.
A hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal.
"Electronic storage."
Any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof.
Any storage of such a communication by an electronic communication service for purpose of backup protection of the communication.
"In-progress trace."
The determination of the origin of a telephonic communication to a known telephone during an interception.
"Intercept."
Aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device.
"Investigative or law enforcement officer."
Any officer of the United States or of the Commonwealth or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offense. The term shall include, but not be limited to, employees of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission, authorized to investigate crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire or oral communications).
"Judge."
When referring to a judge authorized to receive applications for, and to enter, orders authorizing interceptions of wire, electronic or oral communications pursuant to this chapter, any judge of the Superior Court.
"One call system."
A communication system established by users to provide a single telephone number for contractors or designers or any other person to call notifying users of the caller's intent to engage in demolition or excavation work.
"Oral communication."
Any oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. The term does not include any electronic communication.
"Organized crime."
The unlawful activity of an association trafficking in illegal goods or services, including but not limited to, gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, controlled substances, labor racketeering, or other unlawful activities; or
any continuing criminal conspiracy or other unlawful practice which has as its objective:
large economic gain through fraudulent or coercive practices; or
improper governmental influence.
"Pen register."
A device which records or decodes electronic or other impulses which identify the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted, with respect to wire communications, on the telephone line to which the device is attached. The term does not include a device used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communication service provided by the provider, or any device used by a provider, or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of business.
"Person."
Any employee, or agent of the United States or any state or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust or corporation.
"Readily accessible to the general public."
As used with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not:
scrambled or encrypted;
transmitted using modulation techniques of which the essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of the communication;
carried on a subscriber or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;
transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone-only paging system communication; or
transmitted on frequencies allocated under 47 CFR Parts 25, 74D, E, F or 94, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under Part 74 which is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio.
"Remote computing service."
The provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system.
"Tracking device."
An electronic or mechanical device which permits only the tracking of the movement of a person or object.
"Trap and trace device."
A device which captures the incoming electronic or other impulses which identify the originating number of an instrument or device from which a wire or electronic communication was transmitted.
"User."
Any person or entity who:
uses an electronic communication service; and
is duly authorized by the provider of the service to engage in the use.
"Wire communication."
Any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communication by wire, cable or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception, including the use of such a connection in a switching station, furnished or operated by a telephone, telegraph or radio company for hire as a communication common carrier. The term does not include the radio portion of a cordless telephone communication transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit."
=====snip-===================
Now, it is CLEAR from the above, that the wiretapping and electronic surveillance was never meant to cover actual events happening in real time in which a policeman is making a traffice stop and is being filmed by a citizen. Number one, the above scenario does not constitute the interception of electromagnetic communications in the manner covered under the statute.
"Filming a traffic stop doesn't fit felony category
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Brian D. Kelly, 18, of Carlisle likely isn't the only the person around central Pennsylvania who was unaware that recording a police officer during the commission of a traffic stop constitutes a felony criminal act.
Kelly, who says one of his hobbies is making movies, had his camera rolling last month when the pickup truck he was riding in was pulled over by a Carlisle police officer for traffic violations. About 20 minutes into the police stop, the officer noticed that Kelly had a camera pointed at him and told him to turn it off, which he did. Kelly was then charged with felony wiretapping, which carries a penalty of up to seven years in state prison. The young man spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison before his mother posted her house to bail him out.
The logic of interpreting the wiretap law to make it a felony to record police carrying out their duties escapes us, given that increasingly police themselves record traffic stops. In addition, police are regularly recorded by the news media with their acquiescence or permission. And some notable incidents of police using excessive force have been recorded on video.
Even Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed seemed to concede that there was some ambiguity in the law, that "often these cases come down to questions of intent." There were also suggestions that a solution might be to allow Kelly to plead to a lesser charge, an all-too common gambit when an arrest is over the top, as is this one surely is.
This young man's life should not be permanently tarnished by this incident, one that hardly rises to the level of criminality. In any event, it is time for the Legislature to fine tune the law to prevent future miscarriages of justice. "
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=199
"WIRETAPPING & ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN PENNSYLVANIA
By: Eric M. NoonanAssistant Executive Deputy Attorney GeneralOrganized Crime & Narcotics
The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal.
For the purposes of this article, "electronic surveillance" shall include the interception (to include recording) of electronic (digital pagers, computers/e-mail, fax machines), oral (face-to-face conversations where there is an expectation of privacy/non-interruption) and wire (telephone conversations) communications. This general rule, and certain limited exceptions thereto, appear in Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701, et seq.
Some 41 other states nationwide have their own wiretapping/electronic surveillance statutes. These statutes follow either a "one party consent" or "two/all party consent" rule. The former creates an exception to the foregoing general prohibition if one of the parties to the intercepted communication is aware of, and has consented to the interception. The latter reflects a more restrictive rule -- that being that both, or all parties to the intercepted communication must be aware of and have consented to its interception. Pennsylvania falls into the latter, more restrictive category.
In addition to the various state statutes, the federal government has its own wiretapping/electronic surveillance statute at 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. The federal statute is of the less-restrictive "one party consent" variety. This federal law is what authorizes the various states to enact their own statutes. Generally speaking, in order for state statutes to be deemed lawful, they must comport with the constraints of the federal statute. The state statutes can be even more restrictive than the federal statutes, however, they cannot be less restrictive. In addition, there must be compliance with the constraints of the United States Constitution and the respective state constitutions.
There are certain limited exceptions to the general prohibition against electronic surveillance. The exceptions exist for so-called "providers of wire or electronic communication service" (e.g., telephone companies and the like) and law enforcement in the furtherance of criminal investigative activities. With the limited exception of telemarketers, there is no sweeping exception for the private sector absent all parties' awareness and consent to the interception of the communication.
As to the providers' exception -- this generally relates to ensuring the proper operation of their facilities and protection of themselves and their customers from fraudulent or illegal use of their facilities. As to the law enforcement exception -- interceptions can only be undertaken in the furtherance of a criminal investigation. Further, the police do not have an unfettered ability to do interceptions. Their authority is tempered in situations where one of the parties has consented to law enforcement's eavesdropping by the fact that they must get the prior approval of a designated prosecutor.
Further, in the event the conversation is expected to take place in a home, a probable cause-based court order is required in addition to the attorney's approval. In the event the interception proposed by law enforcement is without any of the participants' knowledge or consent, then a court must issue an order based not only on a finding of probable cause, but also a judicial finding that the technique is necessary -- that more traditional/less intrusive investigative techniques would fail or would be fruitless to continue, or would be too dangerous to try. As to the telemarketers' exception -- interception can only be undertaken for training, quality control or business monitoring purposes.
The majority of the Act is devoted to the law enforcement exception. In that regard, the Act provides law enforcement with five investigative techniques: 1) consensual interception of electronic, oral or wire communications (where one of the parties to the communication is aware of, and has consented to law enforcement's electronic eavesdropping); 2) records/information access (i.e. toll records/long distance billing information subscriber information, etc.); 3) mobile tracking devices (electronic tracking of the movement of a vehicle, parcel, etc.); 4) pen register/trap & trace device and telecommunication identification interception device (devices that provide law enforcement with the outgoing numbers dialed from a targeted telephone facility, source of incoming calls to a targeted telephone facility and the electronic serial number/mobile identification number assigned to a cellular telephone facility, respectively); and
5) nonconsensual interception of electronic, oral or wire communications (where none of participants in the communication are aware of or have consented to law enforcement's electronic eavesdropping).
As to 1), consensuals -- the technique must receive the prior approval of the District Attorney, Attorney General or an Assistant DA/Deputy AG before being undertaken. Further, if the technique is to occur in the "home" of anyone other than the consenting party, then a probable cause-based court order is also required. As to 2), records/information access -- either a subpoena, search warrant, court order or the consent of the customer/subscriber to the facility in question must be obtained before law enforcement can access the material. As to 3), mobile tracking -- a court order is required before the technique may be undertaken. As to 4), pen register, etc. -- a probable cause-based court order is required. As to 5) nonconsensuals -- a probable cause-based court order is required finding not only that certain crimes have been, will be or are being committed, but also that there is a need for law enforcement's use of this technique.
Disclosure/use of contents of communications obtained hereby is authorized only in extremely limited circumstances. For criminal investigative purposes, an investigative or law enforcement officer who, pursuant to the proper performance of his/her duties has acquired knowledge of the contents of a communication, may disclose such contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer so long as such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the duties of both the disclosing and receiving officer. Likewise, such investigative or law enforcement officer may use such information (which may implicitly include further disclosure) as appropriate to the proper performance of that officer's duties (such as disclosure to a judge in an affidavit for a search or arrest warrant). Such contents may also be disclosed while giving testimony under oath in any criminal proceeding or in quasi-criminal, forfeiture or professional disciplinary proceedings. Beyond the foregoing parameters, disclosure/use of intercepted communications is prohibited with both civil and criminal penalties.
A person's (private citizen or law enforcement) violation of this statute can arise in the following four general areas: 1) he/she can unlawfully intercept or procure another to unlawfully intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication; 2) he/she can unlawfully disclose the contents of an electronic, oral or wire communication; 3) he/she can unlawfully use the contents of an electronic, oral or wire communication; and 4) he/she can unlawfully advertise, sell or possess an "electronic, mechanical or other device(s)" which, by its design renders it primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of electronic, oral or wire communications. The violation of any of these provisions constitutes a felony of the third degree (and yes, this includes the prohibition of a private citizen from tapping his/her own phone and/or bugging his/her own home).
As noted above, law enforcement personnel cannot electronically eavesdrop without proper authority (i.e. prior independent review by either a designated prosecutor or the judiciary). In addition to the criminal sanctions for violating the Act, other sanctions that can be brought against law enforcement for violating the Wiretap Act which consist of: 1) suppression of evidence gained as a result of any unlawful interception (or evidence derived therefrom); 2) a civil suit brought by an "aggrieved person" (one whose communication was intercepted or one against whom the interception was directed) for reasonable attorneys fees and money damages; and 3) A civil suit brought by an aggrieved person to have the investigative or law enforcement officer who allegedly violated the Act removed from their law enforcement position.
In summary, Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act is all about privacy -- the expectation of privacy we have in our communications. However, it recognizes law enforcement's periodic need to intercept communications to obtain critical evidence in criminal investigations to protect the public. In that regard, the Act strikes a balance by imposing certain requirements on law enforcement via the prior review by a prosecutor and/or judge as explained above. In protecting privacy, the constraints of the Act apply to everyone, law enforcement and private citizens alike."
In addition to the above, here is the actual wording of the ACT
http://members.aol.com/DKM1/18.Cp.57.html
"SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 5701. Short title of chapter.§ 5702. Definitions.
§ 5701. Short title of chapter.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act."
§ 5702. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Aggrieved person."
A person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.
"Aural transfer."
A transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception.
"Communication common carrier."
Any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in intrastate, interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in intrastate, interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy; however, a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, while so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.
"Contents."
As used with respect to any wire, electronic or oral communication, is any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
"Court."
The Superior Court. For the purposes of Subchapter C only, the term shall mean the court of common pleas.
"Electronic communication."
Any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system, except:
The radio portion of a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit.
Any wire or oral communication.
Any communication made through a tone-only paging device.
Any communication from a tracking device (as defined in this section).
"Electronic communication service."
Any service which provides to users the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.
"Electronic communication system."
Any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-optical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications.
"Electronic, mechanical or other device."
Any device or apparatus, including an induction coil, that can be used to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication other than:
Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business, or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business, or being used by a communication common carrier in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties.
A hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal.
"Electronic storage."
Any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof.
Any storage of such a communication by an electronic communication service for purpose of backup protection of the communication.
"In-progress trace."
The determination of the origin of a telephonic communication to a known telephone during an interception.
"Intercept."
Aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device.
"Investigative or law enforcement officer."
Any officer of the United States or of the Commonwealth or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offense. The term shall include, but not be limited to, employees of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission, authorized to investigate crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire or oral communications).
"Judge."
When referring to a judge authorized to receive applications for, and to enter, orders authorizing interceptions of wire, electronic or oral communications pursuant to this chapter, any judge of the Superior Court.
"One call system."
A communication system established by users to provide a single telephone number for contractors or designers or any other person to call notifying users of the caller's intent to engage in demolition or excavation work.
"Oral communication."
Any oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. The term does not include any electronic communication.
"Organized crime."
The unlawful activity of an association trafficking in illegal goods or services, including but not limited to, gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, controlled substances, labor racketeering, or other unlawful activities; or
any continuing criminal conspiracy or other unlawful practice which has as its objective:
large economic gain through fraudulent or coercive practices; or
improper governmental influence.
"Pen register."
A device which records or decodes electronic or other impulses which identify the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted, with respect to wire communications, on the telephone line to which the device is attached. The term does not include a device used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communication service provided by the provider, or any device used by a provider, or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of business.
"Person."
Any employee, or agent of the United States or any state or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust or corporation.
"Readily accessible to the general public."
As used with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not:
scrambled or encrypted;
transmitted using modulation techniques of which the essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of the communication;
carried on a subscriber or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;
transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone-only paging system communication; or
transmitted on frequencies allocated under 47 CFR Parts 25, 74D, E, F or 94, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under Part 74 which is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio.
"Remote computing service."
The provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system.
"Tracking device."
An electronic or mechanical device which permits only the tracking of the movement of a person or object.
"Trap and trace device."
A device which captures the incoming electronic or other impulses which identify the originating number of an instrument or device from which a wire or electronic communication was transmitted.
"User."
Any person or entity who:
uses an electronic communication service; and
is duly authorized by the provider of the service to engage in the use.
"Wire communication."
Any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communication by wire, cable or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception, including the use of such a connection in a switching station, furnished or operated by a telephone, telegraph or radio company for hire as a communication common carrier. The term does not include the radio portion of a cordless telephone communication transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit."
=====snip-===================
Now, it is CLEAR from the above, that the wiretapping and electronic surveillance was never meant to cover actual events happening in real time in which a policeman is making a traffice stop and is being filmed by a citizen. Number one, the above scenario does not constitute the interception of electromagnetic communications in the manner covered under the statute.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Activists Confront Giuliani Over 9/11
http://video.wnbc.com/player/?id=112179
Activists Confront Giuliani Over 9/11
Notice how long he pumps the hand of the gal asking the question.
I've never seen a handshake last that long, or involve such pumping ,
Heck, with that much pumping, I expected an oil stream to shoot out of her hand.
Activists Confront Giuliani Over 9/11
Notice how long he pumps the hand of the gal asking the question.
I've never seen a handshake last that long, or involve such pumping ,
Heck, with that much pumping, I expected an oil stream to shoot out of her hand.
Lieberman Backs Limited U.S. Attacks on Iran
Faux democrate, NeoCon wannabe, Lieberman Backs Limited U.S. Attacks on Iran .
What the hell is wrong with Lieberman ?
From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/washington/10cnd-policy.html?hp
"WASHINGTON, June 10 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent who strongly supports the war in Iraq, said today that unless Iran stops training Iraqis to carry out anti-coalition attacks, the United States should launch cross-border attacks into Iran.
“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Mr. Lieberman said in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”
This could be achieved mostly with air attacks, Mr. Lieberman said, adding, “I’m not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran.”"
===========SNIP=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>>>>>>
WTF is wrong with you Lieberman?
This is the kind of NeoCon crap I would expect from William Kristol or other NeoCons in the PNAC (Project for a New American Century), but, for God's sake, you used to be a Democrat
supposedly. Why aren't you up on the stage with Too Much Rouge Rudy and the rest?
What the hell is wrong with Lieberman ?
From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/washington/10cnd-policy.html?hp
"WASHINGTON, June 10 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent who strongly supports the war in Iraq, said today that unless Iran stops training Iraqis to carry out anti-coalition attacks, the United States should launch cross-border attacks into Iran.
“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Mr. Lieberman said in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”
This could be achieved mostly with air attacks, Mr. Lieberman said, adding, “I’m not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran.”"
===========SNIP=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>>>>>>
WTF is wrong with you Lieberman?
This is the kind of NeoCon crap I would expect from William Kristol or other NeoCons in the PNAC (Project for a New American Century), but, for God's sake, you used to be a Democrat
supposedly. Why aren't you up on the stage with Too Much Rouge Rudy and the rest?
BREAKDOWN OF THE EVENTS ON THE YOUTUBE VIDEO WHERE MATT LEPACEK IS ARRESTED
Over at the Daily Kos site, there is a breakdown of the events displayed and documented in the YouTube video, in which, for no good reason, Infowars.com reporter, Matt Lepacek of Wearechange.org, is arrested, ostensibly at the behest of Ed Goeas, or others in the Giuliani crew.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/9/01519/04901
Sue Goeas, Arrest One Goffstown Cop
by davefromqueens
Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 09:15:19 PM PDT
Although this is a couple of days old, we can't let this story go away.
I've broken down the video where Giuliani's Press Sec. Ed Goeas has reporter Matt Lepacek arrested for asking a question along with the reaction of ONE Goffstown cop who committed several torts and I believe a crime in handling the situation. http://infowars.com/...
The major points are this:
Goeas should be sued for every penny he's worth.
1 police officer overstepped his bounds while 2 other police officers who were next to Lepacek did their jobs professionally.
davefromqueens's diary :: ::
About 20 seconds into the video Goeas is asked a question he is u
50 Second mark - Goeas says to Lepacek "give me your documentation or back off." Lepacek explains his media credentials WITHOUT walking toward Goeas. It is Goeas who approaches Lepacek, not the other way around. Lepacek explains he's a reporter asking questions.
From the 50 second mark to the 1 minute and 30 second mark, two police officers are by Lepacek hearing the whole exchange. There is no problem, no crimes. And these 2 police officers deserve credit for doing their jobs properly at this point.
At the 1:40 second mark, Lepacek turns away when some Giuliani supporter yells out, "You should ask your own candidate these questions sir."
At this point Lepacek WALKS AWAY.
That's when the 3rd officer states, "You can go, you're leaving now. You're leaving right now."
Remember Lepacek was WALKING AWAY before the 3rd officer spoke. The 3rd officer at the 1:45 mark assaults Lepacek on his arm and at the 1:52 mark pushes Lepacek. This is clearly a case where an officer BROKE THE LAW and should be terminated for cause ASAP. (Again, 2 other cops did their jobs properly and these 2 cops were the ones closest to the situation. This cop came out of the blue and acted like a Brownshirt.)
Goeas then laughs about it with his pie in the face comments.
We then see Lepacek being taken out and another gentleman explaining cogently in one minute what happened.
Tags: Rudy Giuliani, Ed
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/9/01519/04901
Sue Goeas, Arrest One Goffstown Cop
by davefromqueens
Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 09:15:19 PM PDT
Although this is a couple of days old, we can't let this story go away.
I've broken down the video where Giuliani's Press Sec. Ed Goeas has reporter Matt Lepacek arrested for asking a question along with the reaction of ONE Goffstown cop who committed several torts and I believe a crime in handling the situation. http://infowars.com/...
The major points are this:
Goeas should be sued for every penny he's worth.
1 police officer overstepped his bounds while 2 other police officers who were next to Lepacek did their jobs professionally.
davefromqueens's diary :: ::
About 20 seconds into the video Goeas is asked a question he is u
50 Second mark - Goeas says to Lepacek "give me your documentation or back off." Lepacek explains his media credentials WITHOUT walking toward Goeas. It is Goeas who approaches Lepacek, not the other way around. Lepacek explains he's a reporter asking questions.
From the 50 second mark to the 1 minute and 30 second mark, two police officers are by Lepacek hearing the whole exchange. There is no problem, no crimes. And these 2 police officers deserve credit for doing their jobs properly at this point.
At the 1:40 second mark, Lepacek turns away when some Giuliani supporter yells out, "You should ask your own candidate these questions sir."
At this point Lepacek WALKS AWAY.
That's when the 3rd officer states, "You can go, you're leaving now. You're leaving right now."
Remember Lepacek was WALKING AWAY before the 3rd officer spoke. The 3rd officer at the 1:45 mark assaults Lepacek on his arm and at the 1:52 mark pushes Lepacek. This is clearly a case where an officer BROKE THE LAW and should be terminated for cause ASAP. (Again, 2 other cops did their jobs properly and these 2 cops were the ones closest to the situation. This cop came out of the blue and acted like a Brownshirt.)
Goeas then laughs about it with his pie in the face comments.
We then see Lepacek being taken out and another gentleman explaining cogently in one minute what happened.
Tags: Rudy Giuliani, Ed
What's in a Name- Don't Pillory Hillary or "Iraq" Barack
People react and respond to names. For politicians, this can be good or bad.
For the democrats, they have an uphill struggle.
Hillary (Formerly known as Rodham) Clinton had two things against her, well, maybe three. Hillary sounds silly. Rodham (which she dropped), said fast, sounds like ROTTEN, and then, Clinton, well some people are still dumb enough to be pissed off about the "blue dress affair" with Monica Lewinsky ("It's an ill wind that blows no good").
And then, there's poor Barack Obama. His first name SOUNDS like Iraq, almost like someone at the North Pole (brrrrrrr) trying to say Iraq while they are shivering from cold . Brrrr-Iraq.
Then there's the middle name "Hussein" . That tied with the first name, is just damn unfortunate at a subconscious level. On top of that, the last name is OBAMA. For God's sake, the only way to make his name worse would be just to say
to Hell with it...and change it slightly to IRAQ HUSSEIN OSAMA. That's a buzzkill if there ever was one.
By comparison, John Edwards is almost American Pie itself. He may as well be named John Doe or Joe Smith.
Now , on this name topic. think about this.
If we elect Dr. Ron Paul, we would say mucho bucks on ink and toner.
Ron Paul has the shortest name of any candidate. I think, if he were elected, it would be AS SHORT or SHORTER than any president ever elected. When you think about the ink and toner used in newspapers, magazines, reports, official documents, letterheads, you name it, that could save thousands over a 4 year period counting both governmental and private sector articles, memos, documents, et.
So, there's yet ANOTHER great reason to vote for RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008.
For the democrats, they have an uphill struggle.
Hillary (Formerly known as Rodham) Clinton had two things against her, well, maybe three. Hillary sounds silly. Rodham (which she dropped), said fast, sounds like ROTTEN, and then, Clinton, well some people are still dumb enough to be pissed off about the "blue dress affair" with Monica Lewinsky ("It's an ill wind that blows no good").
And then, there's poor Barack Obama. His first name SOUNDS like Iraq, almost like someone at the North Pole (brrrrrrr) trying to say Iraq while they are shivering from cold . Brrrr-Iraq.
Then there's the middle name "Hussein" . That tied with the first name, is just damn unfortunate at a subconscious level. On top of that, the last name is OBAMA. For God's sake, the only way to make his name worse would be just to say
to Hell with it...and change it slightly to IRAQ HUSSEIN OSAMA. That's a buzzkill if there ever was one.
By comparison, John Edwards is almost American Pie itself. He may as well be named John Doe or Joe Smith.
Now , on this name topic. think about this.
If we elect Dr. Ron Paul, we would say mucho bucks on ink and toner.
Ron Paul has the shortest name of any candidate. I think, if he were elected, it would be AS SHORT or SHORTER than any president ever elected. When you think about the ink and toner used in newspapers, magazines, reports, official documents, letterheads, you name it, that could save thousands over a 4 year period counting both governmental and private sector articles, memos, documents, et.
So, there's yet ANOTHER great reason to vote for RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008.
Mitt Romney - Make a Moroni and Cheese for me
Mitt's nickname as I understand, is "Catcher's" as in "Catcher's Mitt". There are many insinuations that can be drawn I guess, such as, he likes baseball.
I think it should be MORONI and CHEESE Romney. Why?
Well, Romney is a proud member of the LDS church, and the church was founded when allegedly, the Angel MORONI (
I think it should be MORONI and CHEESE Romney. Why?
Well, Romney is a proud member of the LDS church, and the church was founded when allegedly, the Angel MORONI (
The angel Moroni [mɔr'ounai] (also referred to in early Mormon histories as Nephi) is an angel that Joseph Smith, Jr. said visited him on numerous occasions, beginning on September 23, 1823. The angel was the guardian of the golden plates, which Smith said were buried in a hill near his home in western New York, and which he said were the source material for the Book of Mormon. Moroni is an important figure in the theology of the Latter Day Saint movement, and is featured prominently in Mormon architecture and art. Three Witnesses besides Joseph Smith said they saw Moroni in 1829 visions, as did several other witnesses who each said they had their own vision.
Moroni is said to be the same person as a Book of Mormon prophet-warrior named Moroni, who was the last to write in the golden plates. The book says that Moroni buried them before he died after a great battle between two pre-Columbian civilizations. After he died, he was resurrected, became an angel, and was tasked with guarding the golden plates, and with eventually directing Joseph Smith to their location in the 1820s. According to Latter Day Saint movement theology, Moroni still has the plates and several other Book of Mormon artifacts in his possession. -from Wikipedia ).
Thus, he can put the MORON back in MORONI.
The CHEESE part is that he is just so damn cheesy.
So, make a MORONI and CHEESE Salad for old
Catcher's Mitt.
Tell him it's fine to "go on a Mission" for two years for the LDS church, AT HIS EXPENSE, but we don't want him "Going on a Mission" FOR FOUR YEARS in WASHINGTON, for the USA at OUR expense.
have you heard the new joke about GIULIANI ?
The new joke making the rounds about Giuliani goes like this :
-Hey, do you know the difference between "Too Much Rouge" Rudy Giuliani and a DogCatcher ?
(Pause for them to think, after which they say "No, what is it?")
Answer- A dogcatcher already HAS a job.
-Hey, do you know the difference between "Too Much Rouge" Rudy Giuliani and a DogCatcher ?
(Pause for them to think, after which they say "No, what is it?")
Answer- A dogcatcher already HAS a job.
NICKNAMES FOR REPUBLICAN NOMINATION CANDIDATES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Republican_presidential_candidates
Since BUSHY loves to hand out his pet nicknames, I have suggested here,
some possibles
Sam "Brokeback Mountain" Brownback
John "Methusaleh" McCain
Rudy "Too Much Rouge" Giuliani
Duncan "Earmarks4me" Hunter
"Catcher's" Mitt "Golden Tablets and Magic Spectacles" Romney
Mike "Used2B-A-Fatty" Huckabee ( alternate names include Mike "I KNOW GOD PERSONALLY" Huckabee or Mike "HUCKSTER" Huckabee )
Tom "No Immigrants Allowed" Tancredo
Tommy "My Middle Name is Terrific" Thompson
Jim "The Invisible Man" Gilmore
and last, but certainly not least
Ron "The Doc" Paul , aka Ron "The Winner" Paul
Since BUSHY loves to hand out his pet nicknames, I have suggested here,
some possibles
Sam "Brokeback Mountain" Brownback
John "Methusaleh" McCain
Rudy "Too Much Rouge" Giuliani
Duncan "Earmarks4me" Hunter
"Catcher's" Mitt "Golden Tablets and Magic Spectacles" Romney
Mike "Used2B-A-Fatty" Huckabee ( alternate names include Mike "I KNOW GOD PERSONALLY" Huckabee or Mike "HUCKSTER" Huckabee )
Tom "No Immigrants Allowed" Tancredo
Tommy "My Middle Name is Terrific" Thompson
Jim "The Invisible Man" Gilmore
and last, but certainly not least
Ron "The Doc" Paul , aka Ron "The Winner" Paul
Saturday, June 9, 2007
GUILIANI CLAIMS HE CLEANED UP NEW YORK
TOO MUCH ROUGE GIULIANI CLAIMS HIS BIG ACCOMPLISHMENT WAS CLEANING UP NEW YORK.
SHOWN HERE, RUDY SHOWS WHAT A LARGE TASK IT WAS, AND HOW HE ACCOMPLISHED IT, ONE PIECE AT A TIME.
RUDY, HOW ABOUT GLOVES NEXT TIME BUD?
Edwards says Giuliani carbon copy of Bush
http://www.alaskareport.com/z46176_giuliani_edwards.htm
Washington, D.C. - John Edwards said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani can't win the presidency if he stays too close to Bush ideologically.
Criticizing the current administration's policies on handling terrorism and the war in Iraq in a speech in New York City Thursday, former North Carolina Senator Edwards said "If Mayor Giuliani believes that what President Bush has done is good and wants to embrace it and run a campaign for the presidency, saying I will give you four more years of what this president has given you, then he's allowed to do that."
Edwards added. "He'll never be elected president of the United States, but he's allowed to do that."
Washington, D.C. - John Edwards said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani can't win the presidency if he stays too close to Bush ideologically.
Criticizing the current administration's policies on handling terrorism and the war in Iraq in a speech in New York City Thursday, former North Carolina Senator Edwards said "If Mayor Giuliani believes that what President Bush has done is good and wants to embrace it and run a campaign for the presidency, saying I will give you four more years of what this president has given you, then he's allowed to do that."
Edwards added. "He'll never be elected president of the United States, but he's allowed to do that."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
