This woman's civil rights were clearly violated which is not unexpected with that police department.

But there is great good from all of this in revealing Fred Thompson for the CFR squish that he is - and a really bad actor to boot.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bb8_1185451469

people – self-important serious people – will attempt to wave this off as frivolous or moot, as somehow everything thats gone wrong in the last 8 years is still better than what happened that awful day nearly 6 years ago.

its not. but it is time to act.

Initially the country had a poll tax (a regressive tax that is not based upon assets/income, and sometimes resulted in disenfranchisement for small farmers b/c they had to sell their farms to pay the tax) as well as tariffs. Liberation was from the divine right of kings, a state religion, and taxation without representation...tho the founders turned around and did the same thing to the less-well off with the poll tax.

so, the founders, "liberals" who supported private property, also felt that it was necessary to have taxation to pay for the working of the govt.

if you are one of those people who doesn't want to pay taxes for education, etc...let me remind you that the kids you don't care about now will be the ones wiping your behind when you're in a nursing home.

and gun control...how is that an abridgement of rights if the issues are things like automatic weapons? rifles are not at risk. and just as you or someone else would not be allowed to have a tank that you can use to shoot targets for fun, uzis, etc. aren't an "individual right." I support the right to bear arms for you and whoever, as do other liberals. I don't think it is unreasonable to recognize that some guns, like tanks, say, are not an inherent part of that "right to bear arms."

And, yeah, I agree with you about that life liberty etc... which is why the current govt. is such a sickening moment in history. And why do they insist on stupid things like not allowing farmers to grow hemp? - it would be a great cash crop for them, could replace so many things... Ford made a hemp car that was stronger than steel. Rope, paper... interesting factoid- the declaration of independence was written on hemp paper. it is also a great source of fuel oil... (and it is not psychotropic). Read up about republican farmers who want the govt to get real and return to the long heritage of hemp farming. My aggravation about taxes is that certain industries (oil, for instance) are favored to the detriment of the people of this country. If the oil cos didn't own the fed. govt (both sides of the aisle) we could have long ago set a goal for oil independence, like a goal to put a man on the moon. A whole new source of employment, industry... and the whole issue of single payer health care is another thing that hinders entrepeneurs. people stay in jobs because they can't afford health care otherwise. so big biz has everyone by the... tail.

..and what about that idea of "conservative?" From "conserve," so why do republicans bend over...backwards to allow companies to crap in our waters and leave pcbs in groundwater, etc. etc. etc. Teddy R. knew about this part of conservatism. Actually, the current ideology that calls itself "conservative" in the U.S. bears little resemblance to traditional conservatism. Gingrich et al ushered in the neo-confederacy. Strangle the govt so that you create a permanant class of wage slaves. As Reagan's administration showed, trickle down theory is a joke (i.e. he raised taxes in his second term).

So, taxes are traditionally levied by both parties for the greater good, for protection of the nation... and as far as individual rights...again, have you taken a look at all the "executive fiat" that bush has instituted?

How about that Linsey Lohan huh?

"anyway, liberalism, in its original sense, was about free markets, private property, enlightenment philosophy, individual rights… in other words, the founders would have been considered liberals in their time according to that definition. And that definition isn’t wrong now."

First off, the original context of "liberal" was liberation from oppressive government. The irony of the way it's used today is that liberals generally want to increase the size of government.

"What democratic politician argues against private property or individual rights, etc?"

Almost all of them. The "against private property" tack is usually higher taxation (if my money goes to the government, it's no longer "private property"). The "individual rights" assaults are even more egregious, with the #1 poster child being the constant assault by "liberals" against the Second Amendment.

All I want is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without measurable government involvement. We're a long way from that today...

We need many more Americans to start calling out these Anti-American CFR TRAITORS!

How can a group that openly calls for AND EVEN WRITES PAPERS ON THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Through the creation of its "North American Union" agenda even be allowed to keep on with its treason?

I mean excuse me but the CFR is a MUCH BIGGER DANGER TO AMERICA than the taliban or that 7ft tall islamic doctor evil dude who lives in the bat caves on the other side of the world with running water or power.

These CFR THUGS are Ultra Rich Elitists who form the very top of the Ubder-minority that rules this nations media and most of its government.

In less than one month Bush and the "leaders" of Mexico and Canada are set to hold another "meeting" on their "North American Union" TREASON.

I mean on 99% of the American people HATE THE IDEA (and ditto that for Most Mexicans and Canadians!) But hey this is the New World Order and what EVERYONE ELSE WANTS DOESNT MATTER TO THE UBER-MINORITY.

Clinton,Gore,Edwards and Obama are ALL CFR members.

Same story for most of the GOP

McCain,Guiliani, Romeny and Tompson are ALL CFR members.

If your not supporting Congressman Ron Paul in 2008 then YOU are IN FACT SUPPORTING THE DEATH OF AMERICA.

Posted By Tom Murphy, Somers Point, NJ : July 26, 2007 9:30 am

Ha! Liberals like John Roberts, who completely disrupted and threatened the 2000 Florida ballot counting?
The names of those "liberals" are now on the roster of those working for GW in the WH or on Courts of Appeals, or the SCOTOUS. Yup, Count on those "Liberals to make a stink and disrupt. Or the "liberals" who time and again disrupt the campaign stops of Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards.
My, my, my, those darn SCOTUS Liberals.

Please think before you write......and make a real fool of yourself and the people who support what you say.

To merge the US, Mexico, and Canada is to relinquish our sovereignty to the NWO/global fascist government. Bush has already signed the documents for this process to begin and is guilty of high treason!

Listen to this girl tomorrow (7/27/07) on the Alex Jones show. infowars.com, prisonplanet.com.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/fred_thompson_instant_frontrunner_070702.html

And if anybody thinks THIS looks like any trophy wife, I've got news for them. Can you picture her greeting Foreign dignataries?

http://www.redkingpix.com/cgi-bin/ImageFolio4/imageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=Celebrities&image=042906Thompson.jpg&img=0&search=Fred%20Thompson%20Jeri%20Kehn&cat=all&tt=&bool=or

wow Dan, it's lucky for you that you don't have to know how to spell in order to vote. And speaking of, how many races were republicans involved in voter caging? violation of the 14th amendment?

why aren't you all concerned about Bush's contempt for the Constitution? if he were a democrat, you'd all be howling at the moon...

Brett Elzi : Yes, those pesky little things called facts vindicate that comment...I'm beginning to think a prerequisite for being a conservative is ignorance. All you seem to be able to do here is insult those you don't like. High school is over, children.

anyway, liberalism, in its original sense, was about free markets, private property, enlightenment philosophy, individual rights... in other words, the founders would have been considered liberals in their time according to that definition. And that definition isn't wrong now. What democratic politician argues against private property or individual rights, etc?

the only person who is abusing these issues is Bush with his executive order that allows him to confiscate property of those who "hinder" the occupation of Iraq. The wording is so broad it could apply to you if you criticize his handling of the situation. Individual rights are part of habeas corpus, which is another part of the bill of rights that Bush has said is "irrelevant." He has also been the president that has done the most to regress to some sort of medieval nanny state, rather than enlightened philosophy that posits humans have to solve their own problems, and accept that science isn't about religion, etc.

anyway, I really never heard right wingers that much before I started reading political comment sites. Frankly, I'd be happy to admit that we hate each other and we should separate for the good of the children. You can have Jesusland and we'll take the north. The midwest will decide as they will (and many would not choose Jesusland - that's where I live and you wouldn't believe how many people (liberal, conservative, libertarian, independent) detest Bush and Cheney and just hope this nation will survive them.

The Constitution does not ensure free speech protection under law for a man that falsely yells "fire!" in a crowded room. A person is not protected under the law when giving false accusations or slander either. If a person has corporate insider information are they ensured free speech protection when they tell their close friends to purchase said stock? No.

Here is a simplified definition of disturbing the peace:

"The unsettling of proper order by creating loud noise, by fighting, or conducting other unsocial behavior that upsets people. Punishable by either a fine or brief term in jail, disturbing the peace is considered a misdemeanor."

A person is not covered by free speech protection when they disturb the peace.

It is very obvious by the woman's comments when she is being asked to leave and by the weblink she included on her post to this discussion topic that she went to meet Mr. Thompson with a preconceived agenda. She did not go there with the intent to interview FT. She went there to make a point and in the end she disrupted the event using unsocial behavior.

The self professed interviewer was not apprehended. She was asked to leave and escorted from the building because she was being disruptive. She knew exactly what she was doing. She can play the victim card all she likes but, like a sieve, the argument holds no water.

The Ron Paul group likes to saturate these things with crazy hate speech, but it’s only because their candidate has NO chance to even come close at the nomination. It’s so funny. Instead of getting their guy’s message out, they just do a shouting match at other candidates. It shows them who they are.

Please read the posts. Ron Paul supporters are called delusional and whackjobs. I'm sure a few have also yelled at others, but to act as if we're the only ones being disruptive is down right blind. And a lot of times, when I see someone advocate for Paul, they do link to policy issues or mention his voting record and beliefs. So please, try being fair.

Stephen from Vancouver:

You obviously haven’t been following along with the trade agreements. Whenever they drop tariffs and subsidies it’s called “TRADE LIBERALIZATION”. Think on that for a while.

Please look up the meaning of the word liberalization. Or even liberal. And I don't mean the political term used today, I simply mean the word 'liberal.' For instance, where do you think the word 'liberate' comes from?

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 10, 2003
Neo – CONNED !
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

Craig Roberts
http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=156363

Regards

A conspiracy is not a theory. A conspiracy is a crime.

Osama bin Laden denied having anything to do with 9-11. The "admission" tape was an obvious hoax, given that "Osama" suddenly gained 50 pounds, lost his neck, bashed in his nose, became right-handed and wore a gold band (forbidden in Islam).

Those who claim that 19 Saudi hijackers were responsible for the events are true traitors. The collapse of the towers defied the laws of physics. WTC 7 was brought down by explosives according to Larry Silverstein (owner), employees working inside building 7 and firemen, police and emergency officials at the scene. The BBC and CNN reported that WTC 7 had collapsed more than twenty minutes prior to the actual collapse. How could they have known?

The overwhelming evidence shows that this was an inside job coordinated with Israeli intelligence. An intelligent person would not openly brag about his refusal to examine the evidence because it contradicts his nationalistic tendencies.

There is no more important issue than who was involved in 9-11, particularly at a time when the government and Israeli Zionists are about to create another false flag operation to scare the population into martial law and create justification for Israel and the US to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
The same people who brought you 9-11 are about to bring you 9-11 Part 2.

But to the paid shills and buffoons, run along now like good little cogs so you continue to pay more than 60 percent of your income for a crumbling infrastructure, an uneducated population, and the infamous war machine.

If private, was it the owner of the hangar that instructed the police to remove this woman? Does s/he say why?

At any rate, Ron Paul is the only candidate running worth supporting and he has a solid record of supporting the constitution. Everyone else just issues soundbites.

"What about the lack of any physical evidence of a jet actually hitting the pentagon vs. a missile hitting the pentagon? Where is the tail and wing damage, where are the engines, where is the debris?????"

I'm glad you posted on this thread, I was hoping for a chance to rebut this nonsense since so many of you conspiracy nuts are here...

I think the best response is to point you at this collection of Pentagon 9/11 eyewitness accounts:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

You'll note many of the accounts mention aircraft debris at the scene.

"What a beautiful implosion of two huge, reinforced concrete & steel structures (built to withstand airplane strikes & hurricanes) to powder. How could that happen???? Does that raise any eyebrows???"

First off, the buildings did withstand the aircraft strikes, and stood for some time after that. The problem was that the steel weakened from the heat of thousands of gallons of burning aviation gas. You probably saw the same effect on the news not too long ago when that gas truck exploded on a California freeway bridge, and the bridge failed from the same mechanism.

As to the "implosion", it was lucky the planes hit so high up on the buildings, and were so well centered. When the hot beams failed on those floors, the weight of the several stories above caused them to collapse straight down. No single floor was designed to bear the weight of everything above, so they rapidly pancaked down vertically. It was Newton's Laws in action: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." There was no force to move things sideways, so it fell straight down.

It's a good thing the terrorists didn't plan to strike the buildings further down (say 1/3 of the way from the bottom). That would potentially have trapped lots more people above the fire, and when the buildings collapsed, they might have toppled sideways causing far more death and damage.

I hope I've cleared up any misunderstandings you might have had about the 9/11 terrorist attack.

You obviously haven't been following along with the trade agreements. Whenever they drop tariffs and subsidies it's called "TRADE LIBERALIZATION". Think on that for a while.

'NONE of the republicans will beat ANY of the “top tier” Democrats except for Ron Paul. Simply because Ron Paul is the ONLY republican against the war from the start! I really hope that people start to come to their senses as we get closer to the primaries.'

You're so wrong. Bombing Iran will change the entire dynamic leading into the election.

Fred Thompson will win in a landslide! =)

I hope Fred runs He's already got my vote. strait talker dosn't take b.s. off people And unlike the democrats who wont even debate on Fox sponcered events how the heck can they even consider dealing with the hard issues.

Ron Paul? Who the heck is that... hardly no one knows the guy.. he's got no chance.. no name regnition.

-Michael

If it's on private property, the owners can remove whoever they wish.

On public property, everyone ought to have the right to free assembly as long as they're not disruptive.

"Everybody but the delusional conservatives knows what George Bush is, and in addition to being a wanna-be dictator and the bitter enemy of the Constitution, he is the apotheosis of conservative."

First off, no one who's the "bitter enemy of the constitution" could be a conservative, much less the "apotheosis of conservative".

There are a few very concrete reasons GWB isn't a true conservative:

1) No fiscal restraint.
2) Excessive growth of the Federal government.
3) Willing to give in to the illegals and wreck our way of life.

If you're still confused, I'll explain further.

Yeah, you could really see those prudish values come to the forefront when Bill Clinton got nailed for doing Monica. Oh, wait...the polls showed widespread support for Clinton.

Guess you're wrong. With over half of marriages ending in divorce these days, that's not surprising.

As I've learned from reading news stories on CNN and then digging deeper into the truth stories like this make the lady look like a citizen who for no reason had her rights violated... She is more in fact a self-righteous nut job. This is not because of her views but the gibberish she rights about. I just wish the news would reflect more truth than what appears on the surface.

Believing that the government was involved with 9/11 means you can't believe in conservative principles. You're obviously a liberal (even though distrust in the government isn't very liberal).

Disagreeing with Bush, who has expanded this government more than any president since FDR, means you're not a conservative.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees how sad all this is.

And for those saying Thompson has a better shot than Paul because of his charisma, that's your opinion. It's my opinion that no pro-war Republican can beat a Democrat. It's also my opinion that there are a lot of registered Republicans getting fed up with the war, and should they vote in the primaries, Dr. Paul would be their only choice. Assuming they're informed, of course.

Nice editing job, CNN.