|
|
|
Use this tool to learn about websites, specifically the one you just entered.
If you find some aspect of it inappropriate it is not our fault.
If you are the owner of this website: yes we are a real search engine, we do have a real web crawler called FyberSpider and you can block it if you feel the urge.
We are in the process of updating this tool. Until we are done just use our search results to check the inclusion status of your site.
Submit your site to major search engines within 48 hours.
Find out if your site has been cataloged by top search engines for only $8.99.
Below you will see site info taken directly from the URL you entered in real time. This is also known as our URL Breakdown tool and can be used independently of our site info tool.
publicVoice
This is just a sample of the content found on this website. Please visit the website to read the entire page.
"What People Are Saying
November 12, 2008
A good laugh...
Sent to me via email...
Monday, November 10, 2008
Obama Meets With Dangerous World Leader Without Preconditions
Kalen • 1 Comments/Trackbacks
November 5, 2008
Yes We Can
Nuff said.
Kalen • 1 Comments/Trackbacks
April 12, 2006
Christian editorializing in the NY Times
Interesting editorial today in the NY Times... it speaks for itself. [Warning - requires 'subscription' (free)]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09wills.html?ex=1144987200&en=4d49edd66477d90d&ei=5087%0A
TheGeek • 1 Comments/Trackbacks
March 16, 2006
Letter to Byron York: Read "In re: Sealed Case" again - carefully
I sent a letter to Byron York, White House correspondent for National Review, in response to an article he wrote in the 2/27/2006 issue of NR. The article is available at NRO here. Strangely enough, he didn't give a link to the actual decision (always a bad sign). I've included it (from FindLaw) here.
Here's my letter in it's entirety -
**begin**
Mr. York,
Your article in NR (I read it at NRO) from February 27, 2006 titled "It's Legal" has a few material errors. The real shame is that you had a great opportunity to write an article in support of the PATRIOT Act and the real intent of FISA, especially as amended by the PATRIOT Act. Instead, you chose to write an article in support of the President's "Inherent Authority", and ignored the FISA Court of Review's actual conclusions regarding Truong and the cases that flowed from it (more often than not misconstruing and over-interpreting the limits it sought to impose).
The most relevant (to my point) parts of the ruling (I got a copy from FindLaw):
The FISA Court of Review did not 'decide' the question of inherent Presidential Authority, nor express "irrefutable legal support for its actions" in bypassing the FISA Court -
"We take"
....
read entire page
|
Links to Pages on Other Domain Names
|
|
Links to Pages on the Same Domain Name
|
|
