INGO IN Senate Straw Poll

[photoshooter]

Please show me what part of the Constitution guarantees a "Right to Privacy". The 4th amendment protects us from "unreasonable" search and seizure. Please cite a recent news article or event in which the 4th amendment was violated as a result of the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was created to protect us from terrorist attacks. I'm sure the leniency that it grants for federal agents to collect intelligence has saved thousands of lives. Some people still live in a pre-9/11 mindset.

Mr. Behney most likely doesn't know the Constitution from a hole in the ground. At least that is the impression he gives.

Again, to quote Reagan: "there you go again" with insults instead of issues.

Court Strikes Down 2 Key Patriot Act Provisions | Threat Level | Wired.com

A federal district court judge struck down two key pillars of the Patriot Act Wednesday, ruling that using a secret spying court to wiretap and secretly search Americans’ homes for criminal prosecutions violates the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Federal district court judge Ann Aiken struck down the government’s ability to get orders from the secret spy court for anything other than acquiring foreign intelligence activities, saying that using that court and its lowered standards — instead of getting a traditional criminal wiretap order — violates the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling applies to Patriot Act changes to wiretapping laws and to so-called sneak-and-peak searches, where the government can search someone’s home secretly and never have to disclose the search to the individual.

The ruling comes out of a lawsuit brought by Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield, who was arrested by the FBI shortly after train bombings in Madrid, Spain. The FBI publicly said Mayfield’s prints matched the bomb, though Mayfield had no passport and the Spanish police told the FBI they did not believe the print was a match. The government approached the secret spying court, saying that Mayfield was an "agent of a foreign power" which allowed the government to get warrants to secretly search his home and office, as well as bug his house and eavesdrop on him, for use in a criminal court. Prior to the Patriot Act, searches authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had to have a primary purpose of gathering foreign intelligence, rather than prosecuting a person.

​

 

[Truckerman79]

That article is 3 years old, and I've never heard of that website. Credible sources please.

 

[photoshooter]

That article is 3 years old, and I've never heard of that website. Credible sources please.

You've never heard of WIRED?????

How about: FBI apologizes to lawyer in bombing case - Security- msnbc.com

or: Stanford University? Litigating the Patriot Act: The Mayfield Case | Stanford Law School

Or Mr. Mayfield's local paper: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/12/portland_attorney_brandon_mayf.html

 

[SavageEagle]

Behney is a friggin joke and if anyone has actually seen him in action at the debates he simply embarrassed himself several times.

Not everyone's a great public speaker, but that doesn't mean they aren't the right man for the job. I'm not a great public speaker by ANY means, but I pulled off Indiana's first OC Walk just fine.

That article is 3 years old, and I've never heard of that website. Credible sources please.

Wired? Never heard of it? WOW. That's about as credible as they come....

 

[CSK22]

John Hostettler

 

[photoshooter]

One more: Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional - CNN.com

 

[Truckerman79]

You've never heard of WIRED?????

How about: FBI apologizes to lawyer in bombing case - Security- msnbc.com

or: Stanford University? Litigating the Patriot Act: The Mayfield Case | Stanford Law School

Or Mr. Mayfield's local paper: Federal court rules Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield can't challenge Patriot Act | Portland News - OregonLive.com

Not everyone's a great public speaker, but that doesn't mean they aren't the right man for the job. I'm not a great public speaker by ANY means, but I pulled off Indiana's first OC Walk just fine.



Wired? Never heard of it? WOW. That's about as credible as they come....

I guess I don't get around the web as much as I should?

 

[Truckerman79]

Hostettler thoroughly explains his position on the Patriot Act:

Campaign For Liberty — My interview on Stoopid Politics with John Hostettler

 

[SavageEagle]

I guess I don't get around the web as much as I should?

Wired wasn't always just a net thing. They do have a magazine too. Regardless, most of those stories were big news. Fox covered the outta it too.

Hostettler thoroughly explains his position on the Patriot Act:

Campaign For Liberty — My interview on Stoopid Politics with John Hostettler

So right there he proves to be two-faced. Typical politician. Maybe you all are just fine with people like that. That's you're choice. However, I'm voting for the guy I know and have met personally and discussed most issues that concern me with. Behney.

 

[Indiana Feller]

Is it only the two largest parties holding primaries? I thought others did so as well. Regardless, you're correct, the Democrats are also holding a primary. This thread and poll made the Republican candidates the choices available. If you would like to start a thread asking the same question with the Democrat choices, that is your option as well, as is the option for others who want to do that for other parties as well.

Blessings,
Bill

There are no Dem primary candidates in this race. The incumbent, Bayh "retired" right before the deadline to file 500 signatures from each district. The Dem. party will nominate Brad Elsworth to run. Bayh gave him a cool million from his war chest.

 

[photoshooter]

And yet, he still advocates for taking away our liberties.

Read through this for a counterpoint: The USA PATRIOT Act: What's So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights? by Nancy Chang, November 2001

The Right to Privacy - or the Right to be let alone is a cornerstone of Libertarian philosophy. His Patriot Act involvement just shot that out the window. He spends way too much time focusing on Weasel Word methodology showing how to get around Constitutional frameworks intended to protect our liberty - and not enough protecting our liberty.

Fact: Our federal Constitution was created to limit the scope of our federal govt - and to allow the fed govt just enough power to protect the liberties of our citizens in ways that the individual states could not.

Fact: The Patriot act builds on FISSA law - which most free thinking people regard as an intrusion on our liberties - and evidence gathered under FISSA was rarely allowed as admissible in court due to the illicit nature of it's acquiring (See Sneak and Peak). The Patriot Act moved much of that evidence into the acceptable realm - in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Mr. H is very misguided. He gets too caught up in the actual text, and does not see the ideas of Liberty and Freedom that permeate the writing of the Founding Fathers. He can't see the forest for the trees.

Justice Story's Commentary on the Constitution can be found here:

Following John's logic: Can you please point out where the Justice says that Abortion should not be allowed? By John's own methodology, that makes Abortion quite Constitutional.

Again, he's concentrating on one thing that Judge Napaltano is saying about Search Warrants being written by a judge as "constitutional".

The Patriot Act does some good things - like JH mentions in the vid I posted the link to - but it does some very bad things that rob us of our liberties as individuals - all in the guise of protecting us. The PA grows Big Government and Big Brother at the expense of our privacy and our liberty. It is flat out bad law.

We need to separate the wheat from the chaff - the good parts from the bad parts and start over.

After Ron Paul's endorsement of him, I'm now questioning Dr. Paul's sanity as well. See this article: Reconsidering the Patriot Act by Rep. Ron Paul

 

[Truckerman79]

If the Patriot Act is a deal-breaker for you, then that is your prerogative. Like you said there are good and bad things about it. Which way does the scale tip? Have we been attacked since 9/11? Has the Patriot Act kept us safe? I believe it has played a big part.

I respect your views on the subject, but I'm sure Dan Coats will appreciate your vote.

 

[melensdad]

Mr. H is very misguided. He gets too caught up in the actual text, and does not see the ideas of Liberty and Freedom that permeate the writing of the Founding Fathers.

That is simply your opinion. Each of us is entitled to our own opinions.

But given the FACT that Hostettler is the ONLY candidate who is numerically capable of passing Coats and winning the primary, it makes a lot of sense to consider the endorsements that Hostettler has gotten and to consider things carefully because any vote for any candidate who is NOT John Hostettler is simply a vote for Dan Coats.

If Richard Behney got EVERY "Undecided" vote, plus the 3% of the votes he is showing in the polls, he would still lose by a WIDE margin. Ditto for Don Bates Jr who is running 5% in the polls. Now if Stutzman got EVERY "Undecided" vote then he would win, barely.

The reality is that the undecided votes, based on past election results data, tend to be split up among the leaders. So that means that undecided voters will splinter their votes and likely support COATS, then HOSTETTLER and to a lesser extent STUTZMAN.

Doing so will give Dan Coats the win with about 35-to-36% of the total votes, with John Hostettler coming in second with roughly 32% of the votes and Marlin Stutzman likely coming in with maybe 23% of the votes. Clearly Indiana is leaning heavily toward the conservatives, and its very likely that conservatives will easily get 60% of the votes, but conservatives are SPLINTERED and that is exactly why Coats will edge out John Hostettler.

Bear in mind I am not really a fanboy of Hostettler, honestly I'd be just as happy to see Stutzman win. But that just ain't gonna happen! I am voting for Hostettler because he CAN win. Stutzman is too far behind. Its just that simple. Coats will win if we don't wake up and get behind the only person who can pass him in the election.

 

[boljr01]

The day U.S Gov't passes the law to confiscate our firearms is the day we the people no longer abide by those laws.

I just don't see any politicians bold enough to risk his career to push for abolition of firearms.

It will never happen in million years.

Seems like I heard that with MG's, then again in Chicago, then again in DC, then again with black rifles...of course none of them have the idiocy and/or balls to do it in one fell swoop but they (w/the support of Coates) will continue to chip, chip, chip...

 

[SavageEagle]

I respect your views on the subject, but I'm sure Dan Coats will appreciate your vote.

And I respect your opinion as well. However, you're very wrong about ^ This. My vote is for Behney, not Coats. If it's splits it and hurts someone else's chances over Coats, so be it. However, my vote is not for Coats, otherwise I'd just vote for him.

I'm voting my conscience and if others would too and stand behind their previous comments of "Throw them all out", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

6 months ago, EVERYONE I talked to was all gung-ho, "Throw them all out!". Now everyone's saying, "Well, this guy I REALLY like has no chance, so I'll settle for that guy so the bad guy doesn't win."



Whatever. Do what you all must. I know I won't be changing your minds, but just know that voting for someone you don't like is compromising your own morals. Voting for a CAREER POLITICIAN is hypocritical for some, counter productive for everyone else. And saying my vote for Behney is a vote for Coats is a very twisted and counter productive line of thinking. Shame on you.

 

[photoshooter]

I love how folks keep throwing polls around as Gospel.

numerically capable
The reality is

The reality happens on May 4.
In 2006, reality was that just over 849,000 folks graced the primary with their presence. I would estimate that about 60% were GOPers. So that leaves us with 500,000 potential GOP voters state-wide back then.

The polls you seem to hang everything on are based on calling 500 people.

That is 1/10th of 1 percent of the estimated GOP voters. The numbers get much worse if you assume the 500 polled were across the political spectrum.

Again: You're trying to get your guy across the finish line based on how bad another guy is. According to your scenario, I can't vote for my candidate, because if I do, then the evil guy wins.

If it's so darn important that the evil one be defeated, then your guy - who was a Johnny come lately to the race - jumping in a few weeks before Coats - should drop out. His numbers would be freed up, and could easily take Behney, Bates or Stutzman over the top.

And then, Darth Dan Coats would be defeated - and the all would be right with the world, bunnies and puppies would once again frolic - Ralphie wouldn't have to wear the Pink bunny Suit - and we could return to telling stories about how good of shots we are.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm just not going to do it. I'm not going to compromise my vote and my soul anymore. I can't do it. I just can't do it.

If we don't start giving other candidates part of the vote, they'll never get their name out there. If they don't get their name out there, they'll never get the exposure they NEED to win.

Don't compromise.

Can you honestly say that the person you are voting for agrees with you on every single particular, no matter how small? That the person will take the exact same position that you would take on any legislation that might cross his or her desk? If not, then you are "compromising" and the only thing left is where the line is drawn.

And even if by some miracle this candidate is an exact match to your own positions, can you honestly say that the same will be true of a majority of voters?

How in the world are you going to get a candidate to win unless either you either do accept some degree of compromise or you find a candidate who does match exactly your positions and hypocritically convince a majority of voters to accept compromise on their positions so that your candidate can be elected.

True "no compromise" would mean everybody writing themselves in on the ballot and all it would take to break that deadlock would be for one person willing to "compromise" in getting a candidate who just "mostly" agrees with their positions.

The question is, do you really want to fight for keeping your rights or do you simply want to feel "virtuous" about "not compromising" while voting for candidates who do not and cannot win while those whose voters are willing to accept at least some degree of compromise continue to get into office.

Once upon a time there were thirteen colonies in this nation. They each had different problems, different needs, and different ideas on how things should be done. They were well on the way to falling to "divide and conquer" (in modern military terms "defeat in detail.") Then a gentleman by the name of Benjamin Franklin came up with a political cartoon that helped turn that around. Individually, the thirteen colonies could not win. Together, making common cause with folk they didn't always entirely agree with, they could.

There is a lesson here.

Oh, the political cartoon? Here it is:

 

[photoshooter]

So, let me see if I understand this:

I am to unite around "your guy" because he's the only who can beat the "evil one" and vanquish darkness - based on phone calls to less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the likely primary voters in this state.

Or, I can exercise my natural rights, and the rights imparted by our Constitution, and cast my vote for whomever I feel will best serve my State and my Republic.

 

[SavageEagle]

Can you honestly say that the person you are voting for agrees with you on every single particular, no matter how small? That the person will take the exact same position that you would take on any legislation that might cross his or her desk? If not, then you are "compromising" and the only thing left is where the line is drawn.

And even if by some miracle this candidate is an exact match to your own positions, can you honestly say that the same will be true of a majority of voters?

How in the world are you going to get a candidate to win unless either you either do accept some degree of compromise or you find a candidate who does match exactly your positions and hypocritically convince a majority of voters to accept compromise on their positions so that your candidate can be elected.

True "no compromise" would mean everybody writing themselves in on the ballot and all it would take to break that deadlock would be for one person willing to "compromise" in getting a candidate who just "mostly" agrees with their positions.

The question is, do you really want to fight for keeping your rights or do you simply want to feel "virtuous" about "not compromising" while voting for candidates who do not and cannot win while those whose voters are willing to accept at least some degree of compromise continue to get into office.

Once upon a time there were thirteen colonies in this nation. They each had different problems, different needs, and different ideas on how things should be done. They were well on the way to falling to "divide and conquer" (in modern military terms "defeat in detail.") Then a gentleman by the name of Benjamin Franklin came up with a political cartoon that helped turn that around. Individually, the thirteen colonies could not win. Together, making common cause with folk they didn't always entirely agree with, they could.

There is a lesson here.

Oh, the political cartoon? Here it is:

You make a good point. And Compromise isn't a bad thing. But I've shown where Hostettler is willing to compromise his own morals and go with whatever they tell/pay him to do. He said no to Iraq, then said OK to staying there until the end of time. He helped write the Patriot Act and he HAD to know that most all of it was unConstitutional. I cannot vote for someone like that.

Knowing that Behney will follow the Constitution, that's what I care about. I'm not exactly picky, but when someone is willing to bend or break the Constitution, I cannot in good faith support them.

I refuse to pick and choose which Amendments of the Bill of Rights I'm going to save and which ones to compromise on. Period.

If Behney and I don't see eye to eye on an issue, I've not yet seen it.

 

[SavageEagle]

I just noticed something about this image I've not noticed before. There are 10 sections and 9 states represented with letters...