Thursday, 13 June 2013

1930′s Redux?







 

 

New post on Maggie's Notebook

 

1930′s Redux?

by findalis

Stolen from Faultline USA

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over the past few weeks I have been wondering why none of what's happening today in America seems new, or even surprising. A short time ago it became clear. We've experienced it before. We've seen this movie before. It's pre-1945 Germany -- all over again.

"The U.S. had been moving toward a total police state since about 1913; but in 2012 the final nail in the coffin of democracy and justice was hammered into place with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. NDAA allows for the U.S. military to arrest, imprison, and torture American citizen without due process of any kind!

Contemporary America has adopted the identical police state, economic-military imperialist policies and operations that Nazi Germany did--though the enactment of those policies differs to some degree. The sound of Gestapo jackboots is now heard in the land of Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt."  SOURCE

Oh, yes. I expect to get hammered for even broaching this subject. Any time a conservative points out the obvious -- especially when it has to do with Hitlerian Germany -- we are hammered by the political left.

Problem is -- there are still a few of us around who remember those days, and the war, and the years after the war when so much more was uncovered about the leftist movement in Germany that produced Nazism and nearly destroyed the world.

In his book: "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change," Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

The sad truth is -- they are doing it again. This time America is their target and, unfortunately the average American citizen is so ignorant of politics, so ignorant of their own country's history and its founding documents they are allowing a leftist dictatorship to roll-up America as they stand idly by fiddling with their latest electronic gadget totally oblivious to their loss of freedom.

So why speak up now and risk bringing an excrement shower down on our heads? Because we have a duty to our fellow man to issue a warning.

Those of my generation remember these few words well. They are burned into our psyche:

 

"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't communist.

They they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionists.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Finally, they came for me, but there was no one left to speak up."

Those words were penned by Martin Niemoeller, a Lutheran Pastor who was sent to the Dachau Concentration Camp in 1938. He paid the price.

We could easily insert the words "Tea Party", "The Press," "Christians," "Conservatives" into the Rev Niemoeller's words above and they would fit, exactly, where we are today in modern America.

In an oped piece for the Washington Times back in 2009, Walter Williams, a professor of economics at George Mason University, said this: "The path we're embarked upon, in the name of good, is a familiar one. The unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the '30s and '40s with the men usually associated with those names. Those horrors were simply the end result of a long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the name ofsocial justice." In Germany, it led to the Enabling Act of 1933: Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation. After all, who could be against a remedy to relieve distress? Decent but misguided Germans, who would have cringed at the thought of what Nazi Germany would become, succumbed to Hitler's charisma.

Today's Americans, enticed, perhaps enchanted, by charismatic speeches, are ceding so much power to Washington, and like yesteryear's Germans, are building the Trojan horse for a future tyrant." SOURCE

I came across an article entitled: "26 Similarities Between America and Nazi Germany -- Three Forces Destroying the America We Know" By Brannon Howse recently. I'd like you to consider a few of those similarities Mr. Howse points out:

In 1935, under Hitler's rule, prayers ceased to be obligatory in schools. In 1962, The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed school prayer.

Hitler eliminated Christian holidays in the schools first by calling Christmas "Yuletide." Most American public schools now call Christmas vacation a "winter break."

Hitler took Easter out of schools and instead honored that time of year as the beginning of spring. It has likewise become common for schools in America to refer to time off at Easter as "spring break."

Hitler controlled the church using intimidation and threats. A half-century ago, U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson, promoted a bill that included an amendment to use the Internal Revenue Service to remove the non-profit status of a church that speaks against the election of any specific political candidate. (We all KNOW what the IRS has recently publicly admitted to doing.)

Hitler enticed thousands of pastors to promote paganism in their congregations. Neo-paganism is one of the fastest growing religions in America, doubling every 18 months according to a June 2008 article in The Denver Post.

Hitler was an environmentalist and vegetarian. Marriages performed by the Nazi state frequently included blessings of "Mother Earth" and "Father Sky." Today Americans increasingly accept radical environmentalism, pantheism, and the celebration of Earth Day.

Hitler was fascinated by eastern mysticism. Today an increasing number of American pastors encourage their followers to become "mystic warriors".

Hitler's holocaust killed between 8 and 11 million Jews and non-Jews. Americans have killed an estimated 50 million babies since abortion was legalized through the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

By 1938, all private schools were abolished by Hitler and all education placed under Nazi control. There is constant pressure from federal and many state education authorities to require that Christian schools use state-mandated, humanistic textbooks.

Hitler prevented dissenters from using radio to challenge his worldview. Many powerful liberals in America have made clear their intent to reintroduce the "Fairness Doctrine" that would require conservative and religious radio stations to offer equal time to anti-Christian, anti-conservative worldviews.

Pastors who spoke against Hitler's worldview and his murderous regime found themselves on trial and frequently imprisoned for "Abuse of Pulpit." In America, hate-crime legislation has the potential to criminalize Christians and pastors who speak out against the homosexual agenda.

Hitler outlawed the cross and replaced it with the swastika. Today many churches, Christian colleges, and universities have willingly removed the cross from their buildings. Numerous court cases sponsored by the ACLU have required the removal of the cross from public grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the Ten Commandments cannot be posted on public grounds for religious purposes.

Hitler exploited the economic collapse of Germany to take over as dictator and usher in his brand of socialism. America's financial crisis has given liberals in both political parties the opportunity to grow the size of government and implement freedom-robbing socialism at lightning speed.

Hitler was obsessed with globalism, and many of America's most powerful political leaders are willing to subjugate American sovereignty to contemporary globalism.

Many Germans responded to Hitler by retreating into neutrality. Today most Americans prefer to remain neutral on moral issues that they think don't affect them personally.

On trial after World War II, Hitler's henchmen used the defense that they had not broken any laws. True, they had not defied the laws of Germany since those had been re-written to fit the goals and objectives of Hitler. The Nazi leaders were nevertheless found guilty because the courts at the time recognized a "law above the law." Yet now the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the law of nature and nature's God by claiming that as society evolves, morals evolve, and so the law, too, must evolve.

Calling upon Darwinian evolution, Hitler convinced the German people that purging millions of people was acceptable because of the need to create a pure race; also referred to as eugenics. American students across the board have been educated in Darwinian evolution because the Supreme Court has ruled that creation cannot be taught in our schools-even if both creation and evolution are taught side by side.

Germans accepted socialism to avoid pain. Today's Americans are rejecting capitalism in exchange for government-sponsored "free" healthcare, education, and countless other government handouts.

America is rushing toward government-sponsored, national healthcare. (Obamacare is already the law of the land in America.) We already have a form of this in Medicare and Medicaid. Hitler, too, expanded and centralized Germany's healthcare system. As Melchior Palyi explained, "The ill-famed Dr. Ley, boss of the Nazi labor front, did not fail to see that the social insurance system could be used for Nazi politics as a means of popular demagoguery, as a bastion of bureaucratic power, [and] as an instrument of regimentation."

There is much more in this article and we recommend you read it -- whether you agree with it or not. You will find it here: SOURCE

I don't know about you, but I experienced an involuntary shudder as I read the similarities above. It's akin to reliving a terrifying nightmare.

What's even more distressing is watching my fellow Americans happily and energetically promoting and then voluntarily lining up for the FREE hot government showers.

It has been said that the only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and these are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. I would add one more -- apathy.

Many conservatives are losing hope today that America can survive. Unless there is an act of God, I feel certain America will install another president in the mold of the current occupant of the Oval Office in 2016. I believe that will truly mark the end of days for America.

America rode to the rescue of the world in the 1940's. But there is no one, no country, remotely interested in riding to America's rescue today. So, if America is to be rescued, she must rescue herself.

And therein lies the deepest hurt of all.

There is virtually no homogeneity in America these days. There is precious little similarity, or comparability in kind or nature amongst Americans anymore. Diversity and multiculturalism took care of that. We have so little in common with our neighbors and fellow countrymen that we really could not care less what happens to them and -- by extension -- to our country. Thus our vulnerability.

It is not enough to ask as the ancient Psalmist did: "If the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" -- Psalm 11:3. It seems so inadequate to answer by sounding ONLY the alarm.

But America is not alarmed -- not yet! Until she is -- and until she is ready to pay the fiddler, her race to self immolation will continue.

findalis | 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Obama 'Strongly Objects' to Religious Liberty Amendment




http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/obama-strongly-objects-to-religious-liberty-amendment.html

 

 

radio.foxnews.com

Obama 'Strongly Objects' to Religious Liberty Amendment


By Todd Starnes

The Obama Administration "strongly objects" to a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act on Wednesday that would have protected the religious rights of soldiers – including evangelical Christian service members who are facing growing hostility towards their religion.

FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!

The amendment was authored by Rep. John Fleming, R-La. It would have "required the Armed Forces to accommodate 'actions and speech' reflecting the conscience, moral, principles or religious beliefs of the member."

The Obama Administration said the amendment would have a "significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment."

"With its statement, the White House is now endorsing military reprimands of members who keep a Bible on their desk or express a religious belief," Fleming told Fox News. "This administration is aggressively hostile towards religious beliefs that it deems to be politically incorrect."

Fleming introduced the amendment after a series of high-profile incidents involving attacks on religious liberty within the military- including an Air Force officer who was told to remove a Bible from his desk because it might give the impression he was endorsing a religion.

He said there are other reports of Christian service members and chaplains being punished for their faith.

  • The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it include the word "God." The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists.
  • A service member received a "severe and possibly career-ending reprimand" for expressing his faith's religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.
  • A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize "the religious right in America" as a "domestic hate group" akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.
  • A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA's definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.

Last month Coast Guard Rear Admiral William Lee told a National Day of Prayer audience that religious liberty was being threatened by Pentagon lawyers and service members are being told to hide their faith in Christ.

"Leaders like myself are feeling the constraints of rules and regulations and guidance issued by lawyers that put us in a tighter and tighter box regarding our constitutional right to express our religious faith," he said.

Fleming said the purpose of his amendment is to clarify ambiguities in the Pentagon's policies.

"The bottom line is the military is bending over backwards to remove – even in the case of chaplains – expressions of faith and conscience," Fleming said.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the Obama Administration's edict a "chilling suppression of religious freedom."

"The Obama administration has joined forces with those who are attacking the religious freedoms of those who serve in our Armed Services," Perkins said. "The Administration's opposition to Rep. Fleming's religious freedom amendment reveals that this administration has gone beyond accommodating the anti-Christian activists who want to remove any vestige of Christianity from the military, to aiding them by blocking this bipartisan measure."

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

"View" From Paris Not Yet Shown On News Here






And this is what that Socialist-Muslim-Traitor-in-Chief wants for the USA.

 

France, and the city of Paris, where some of the treasures of the world are kept and displayed, is obviously overrun by a people whose religion is based on killing,

indiscriminate child bearing, poligamy and living off the state. We have just witnessed the ruthless killing of peaceful Americans. When you think about it...Paris

is a lot closer than it was 20 years ago....and Boston...friends....is just over the US/Canadian border. An easy drive from the eastern provinces. Who is next ?

Montreal ? Quebec City....Toronto...it's a matter of time. So if you are hesitant in sending this on, it could be Winnipeg or Victoria...or your grandchildren,

Your tax dollar is paying for it.

VIDEO FROM PARIS THAT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE U.S.A. Australia or Canada yet!
CLICK HERE: 

 

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Essential Liberty: They Came for Your Guns





Essential Liberty: They Came for Your Guns

Posted By Howard Nemerov On June 13, 2013 @ 12:00 am In Books,Culture,Gun Control,Politics | 6 Comments

What if the federal government decided to confiscate all civilian firearms? Would you surrender your guns? Would your friends and neighbors turn you in? Do enough Americans remain who are willing to risk their lives resisting disarmament? Would the military support the government, or the people, or both?

What if the Supreme Court rules disarmament is constitutional? Would sheriffs who previously swore to resist [1] unconstitutional firearms laws decide to support disarmament after such a ruling?

The issue these days isn't that the Supreme Court affirmed Second Amendment principles in District of Columbia v. Heller [2] and McDonald v. Chicago [3], but that four of nine justices dissented. Similarly, the Manchin-Toomey amendment [4] to expand background checks didn't advance — but 54 senators voted for it [5]. If those opposing the civil right of self-defense elect just a few more representatives and senators, or replace one more Supreme Court justice, the Second Amendment's "official" interpretation could drastically change; the questions above would no longer be academic.

The novel Essential Liberty [6] serves as scenario training, just like tactical pistol classes help people acquire the skills to survive a potentially lethal attack. Like tactical training, Essential Liberty takes today's news and political climate and moves them just a little farther into a possible future.

Author Rob Olive understands the basic problem with today's debate:

Facts and logic mattered not at all, as many firearms rights supporters quickly discovered. When emotions ran as high as they did on this issue, there could be no true debate. (Page 8, Kindle Edition.)

Olive accurately portrays a likely scenario, including a series of actions by the federal government, justice system, and media that have been in play for years, though perhaps more so since the Newtown tragedy. There are deeper, darker aspects to Olive's story that may have happened in fact, but haven't been exposed yet. An example: we assume background-check records get destroyed as required by federal law [7], per below:

In cases of NICS Audit Log records relating to allowed transactions, all identifying information submitted by or on behalf of the transferee will be destroyed within 24 hours after the FFL receives communication of the determination that the transfer may proceed. All other information, except the NTN and date, will be destroyed after not more than 90 days from the date of inquiry.

But consider current events, such as the Benghazi [8] attack on our consulate, the IRS [9] targeting "conservative groups," and Fast & Furious [10]. Is it reasonable to assume the feds always destroy all copies and backups of legal firearms purchases? Wikileaks [11] is an example of how computer records show up unexpectedly.

Then there's the latest revelation that the National Security Agency can "intercept almost everything" sent electronically. According to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden [12]: "Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place." Is it reasonable to believe that NICS transactions over a government network are secured against another government agency tracking everything it can in the name of national security?

Having been published before all these recent government scandals, Essential Liberty becomes prophetic. When interviewed recently, Olive said: "I have NO confidence whatsoever that some sort of gun registry doesn't already exist, in light of the NSA revelation, IRS revelation, AP wiretap revelation, etc."

Essential Liberty opens somewhat heavily, but the reality of disarmament needs explanation. The story is informative enough to keep it interesting. There are a few other detractions, at least for some readers. Olive uses a lot of acronyms, though he initially defines them. Some readers may need to slow down to track who's doing what. Olive's characters speak in similar voices, exhibiting a lack of character development. He uses a lot of dialogue to set up plotlines. Great stories show.

For example, the novel contains a bar scene where Marshall Keller and Agent Myers "come clean" with their thoughts about confiscation. It comes off as forced — a device to convey how some government agents don't want to enforce it. Cops often speak in code, and Keller's first short answer would have revealed his perspective, making further dialogue unnecessary. According to Olive:

I had in mind for this scene to really illustrate Bobby's anguish over the whole thing. Keller's surprise that Bobby would open up, especially to the degree that he did, sort of alludes to the "code" you speak of having been broken in this case. I really wanted to convey more than these two law enforcement officers "coming clean." I wanted to show how literally torn up Bobby was, as I believe many law enforcement officers would be if this ever came to pass.

Some of Olive's writing targets "attaboys," potentially turning off those who are the most important to reach: the undecided middle:

Of course, the mere mention of such historical facts these days could very well result in one being branded a "right-wing extremist." Mike was always dumbfounded by the fact that the words upon which his country was founded were now considered "extreme." (Page 6, Kindle Edition.)

Olive explained this focus:

My primary purpose in writing Essential Liberty (besides wanting to write a thriller that — by definition — entertains) was to reach those already on "our" side who take liberty for granted, who don't pay enough attention, and who refuse to consider the possibility that a scenario like this could happen. I wanted to address complacency within our ranks more than to win over the undecided. Having said that, I've been told by a few readers who've never owned guns that they viewed Sandy Hook through a different lens as a result of having read my novel. The excerpt you reference above is critical for all of us, regardless of politics, to understand. We've strayed so far from our founding principles that the words our Founders used are now considered "extreme."

Olive makes many salient points in Essential Liberty:

Far too many "gun rights people" focused on the gun issue alone, which was shortsighted and selfish, not to mention hypocritical. Freedom was freedom and it had been slipping away in this country for much of the twentieth century. (Page 62, Kindle Edition.)

Essential Liberty does show how we have lost touch with important founding values that created American greatness. Perhaps more germane in today's political climate, Olive highlights how the American people are responsible for the politicians currently driving us to ruin; how we're becoming a nation full of self-centered folks who don't care if others' rights are infringed, as long as it doesn't infringe on our lives. But telling can draw a good story out of the novel realm and into the world of op/ed. When asked about how he worked to balance between showing and telling, Olive said:

I would, of course, argue that it is very much a novel … a thriller, but with a message. This novel was a labor of love for me, having taken more than a decade of my life (albeit intermittently) to produce. While it may seem heavy handed at times, the story conveys what I consider a vital, timely message.

Olive provides lots of material to make you think about what's happening in America today, and what you can do about it. The pace picks up after the first quarter and the book becomes a page-turner. There are some character arcs and surprising plot twists. Olive occasionally breaks up the flow by explaining characters' motivations instead of letting their actions tell the story. Some of the moralizing likely reduces the book's effectiveness as outreach to those not already Second Amendment supporters. Nevertheless, this book is worth reading — most crime/adventure novels fail to address how real political and social dynamics impact current events and social policy. Considering that Olive took on complex and hot-button subject matter, and a threat that most of us prefer ignoring, Essential Liberty is worth reading because it successfully portrays today's news as a parable of what can happen if good people do nothing.


Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/essential-liberty-they-came-for-your-guns/

URLs in this post:

[1] sheriffs who previously swore to resist: http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/

[2] District of Columbia v. Heller: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-290

[3] McDonald v. Chicago: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZO.html

[4] Manchin-Toomey amendment: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/17/what-is-the-manchin-toomey-background-check-amendment/

[5] 54 senators voted for it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097

[6] Essential Liberty: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0985902027/ref=as_li_tf_il?ie=UTF8&tag=pajamasmedia-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0060594640

[7] federal law: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2007-title28-vol1/xml/CFR-2007-title28-vol1-sec25-9.xml

[8] Benghazi: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22459439

[9] IRS: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57585376/top-obama-officials-knew-about-irs-probe-says-wh/

[10] Fast & Furious: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/20/DOJ-Inspector-General-confirms-US-Attorney-DOJ-headquarters-leaked-documents-to-smear-Fast-and-Furious-whistleblower

[11] Wikileaks: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks

[12] NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-why



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: Most Americans back NSA tracking phone records, prioritize probes over privacy

Does anyone with an IQ higher than a toadstool believe anything in the WaPoop?

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:00 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-support-nsa-tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6-d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html

By Jon Cohen, Published: June 10
A large majority of Americans say the federal government should focus
on investigating possible terrorist threats even if personal privacy
is compromised, and most support the blanket tracking of telephone
records in an effort to uncover terrorist activity, according to a new
Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll.

Fully 45 percent of all Americans say the government should be able to
go further than it is, saying that it should be able to monitor
everyone's online activity if doing so would prevent terrorist
attacks. A slender majority, 52 percent, say no such broad-based
monitoring should occur.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

The Pie Doctor








--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Most Americans back NSA tracking phone records, prioritize probes over privacy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-support-nsa-tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6-d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html

By Jon Cohen, Published: June 10
A large majority of Americans say the federal government should focus
on investigating possible terrorist threats even if personal privacy
is compromised, and most support the blanket tracking of telephone
records in an effort to uncover terrorist activity, according to a new
Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll.

Fully 45 percent of all Americans say the government should be able to
go further than it is, saying that it should be able to monitor
everyone's online activity if doing so would prevent terrorist
attacks. A slender majority, 52 percent, say no such broad-based
monitoring should occur.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Liberty in Shambles

ames Clapper, the director of national intelligence, testified that
the feds were not gathering vast data on Americans. Who would trust
him? The NSA says that Congress knew about all this, but its members
were prohibited from telling the American people. What kind of a
democracy is that?
---
America is not a democracy.

On Jun 13, 3:12 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Liberty in Shamblesby Andrew P. Napolitano
> When British soldiers were roaming the American countryside in the 1760s with lawful search warrants with which they had authorized themselves to enter the private homes of colonists in order to search for government-issued stamps, Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." The soul-searching became a revolution in thinking about the relationship of government to individuals. That thinking led to casting off a king and writing a Constitution.
> What offended the colonists when the soldiers came legally knocking was the violation of their natural right to privacy, their right to be left alone. We all have the need and right to be left alone. We all know that we function more fully as human beings when no authority figure monitors us or compels us to ask for a permission slip. This right comes from within us, not from the government.
> Thomas Jefferson made the case for natural rights in the Declaration of Independence ("endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"). The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to reduce to writing the guarantees of personal liberty. ("Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of ... religion ... speech ... press ... assembly..." "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")
> And, of course, to prevent the recurrence of soldier-written search warrants and the government dragnets and fishing expeditions they wrought, the Constitution mandates that only judges may issue search warrants, and they may do so only on the basis of probable cause of crime, and the warrants must "particularly describ(e) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> Last week, we discovered that the government has persuaded judges to issue search warrants not on the constitutionally mandated basis, but because it would be easier for the feds to catch terrorists if they had a record of our phone calls and our emails and texts. How did that happen?
> In response to the practice of President Richard Nixon of dispatching FBI and CIA agents to wiretap his adversaries under the guise of looking for foreign subversives, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978. It prohibited all domestic surveillance in the U.S., except if authorized by a judge based on probable cause of crime, or if authorized by a judge of the newly created and super-secret FISA court. That court was empowered to issue warrants based not on probable cause of crime, but on probable cause of the target being an agent of a foreign power.
> The slippery slope began.
> Soon the feds made thousands of applications for search warrants to this secret court every year; and 99 percent of them were granted. The court is so secret that the judges who sit on it are not permitted to keep records of their decisions. Notwithstanding the ease with which the feds got what they wanted from the FISA court, Congress lowered the standard again from probable cause of being an agent of a foreign power to probable cause of being a foreign person.
> After 9/11, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. This permitted federal agents to write their own search warrants, as if to mimic the British soldiers in the 1760s. It was amended to permit the feds to go to the FISA court and get a search warrant for the electronic records of any American who might communicate with a foreign person.
> In 30 years, from 1979 to 2009, the legal standard for searching and seizing private communications – the bar that the Constitution requires the government to meet – was lowered by Congress from probable cause of crime to probable cause of being an agent of a foreign power to probable cause of being a foreign person to probable cause of communicating with a foreign person. Congress made all these changes, notwithstanding the oath that each member of Congress took to uphold the Constitution. It is obvious that the present standard, probable cause of communicating with a foreign person, bears no rational or lawful resemblance to the constitutionally mandated standard: probable cause of crime.
> Now we know that the feds have seized the telephone records of more than 100 million Americans and the email and texting records of nearly everyone in the U.S. for a few years. They have obtained this under the laws that permit them to do so. These laws – just like the ones that let British soldiers write their own search warrants – were validly enacted, but they are profoundly unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because they purport to change the clear and direct language in the Constitution, and Congress is not authorized to make those changes.
> These laws undermine the reasons the Constitution was written, one of which was to guarantee the freedom to exercise one's natural rights. These laws directly contradict the core American value that our rights come from our humanity and may not be legislated away – not by a vote of Congress, not by the consensus of our neighbors, not even by agreement of all Americans but one.
> The government says we should trust it. Who in his right mind would do so after this? President Obama says the feds have your phone records but are not listening to your calls and will not read your emails. Who would believe him? James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, testified that the feds were not gathering vast data on Americans. Who would trust him? The NSA says that Congress knew about all this, but its members were prohibited from telling the American people. What kind of a democracy is that?
> The modern-day British soldiers – our federal agents – are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives. If anything violates the lessons of our history, the essence of our values and the letter of the Constitution, it is this.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why No Perjury Indictment for Clapper?

nowhere does the law recognize the protection of "national security"
to be a defense to a charge of perjury
---
The Justice Department has issued a new defense of Attorney General
Eric Holder's Congressional testimony last month on investigations of
journalists, sending a letter to two House leaders who complained that
Holder appeared to have misled lawmakers at a May 15 hearing.
The letter from Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Peter
Kadzik doesn't add much to the sum total of knowledge about why
prosecutors named Fox News reporter James Rosen as a co-conspirator in
order to get a search warrant for his email in a leak investigation.
It also reflects statements DOJ made last week arguing that labeling
Rosen that way was not at odds with Holder's statement to the House
Judiciary Committee that he'd never even "heard of" the possibility of
prosecuting a journalist.
"Seeking a search warrant is part of an investigation of criminal
activity, which typically comes before any final decision about
prosecution," Kadzik wrote in the letter to House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security
and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr. "We
are unaware of an instance in when the Department has prosecuted a
journalist for the mere publication of classified information.....At
no time during the pendency of this matter--before or after seeking
the search warrant--have prosecutors sought approval to bring criminal
charges against the reporter."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/doj_sends_letter_defending_holder_on_perjury_charge.html#ixzz2W8CCse00
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

On Jun 13, 3:10 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Why No Perjury Indictment for Clapper?byJacob G. HornbergerJune 13, 2013
> The feds indicted and prosecuted Martha Stewart for lying to federal investigators about a stock trade. They also indicted baseball star Roger Clemens for supposedly lying to Congress about drug abuse.
> So, the obvious question arises: Why no perjury indictment against Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr.
> Consider the following testimony that Clapper gave to Congress last March:
> Senator Ron Wyden: Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?
> Clapper: No, sir. Not wittingly.
> In light of the revelations regarding the super-secret NSA surveillance scheme on the American people, which is no longer super-secret, what other conclusion can be drawn than that Clapper knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally lied to Congress?
> In fact, he's even pretty much confessed that he lied. According to the New York Times, "In an interview on Sunday with NBC News, Mr. Clapper acknowledged that his answer had been problematic, calling it 'the least untruthful answer he could give.'"
> So, why no perjury indictment? Why no indictment for lying to Congress in an official hearing? Why no indictment for obstruction of justice? Why not the same treatment for Clapper that the feds meted out to private American citizens Martha Stewart and Roger Clemens?
> After all, let's not forget the words of David Kelley, the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Martha Stewart for lying to federal investigators about a stock trade: "The word is beware and don't engage in this type of conduct because it won't be tolerated."
> Really? Why then is such conduct being tolerated in the case of Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr.?
> Or recall the words of federal prosecutor Courtney Saleski in the Roger Clemens trial: "He did that at the expense of our Congress. He threw sand in their eyes. He stole the truth from them."
> Isn't that what Clapper did to Congress when he knowingly lied to them about whether the NSA was collecting data on millions of American citizens?
> One might say, "But Jacob, he was lying to protect 'national security.'"
> My answer: So what? Since when is that a defense to a perjury charge? Sure, it might work to reduce his sentence after he's convicted but nowhere does the law recognize the protection of "national security" to be a defense to a charge of perjury for, for that matter, murder, robbery, burglary, or any other crime.
> I'll tell you why they're not indicting James R. Clapper, Jr. It's because he is a high official in what has effectively become the national-security branch of the U.S. government, a branch that consists of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. For all practical purposes, officials in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches aren't about to enforce their perjury laws against what they know has grown into the most powerful of the four branches of the federal government.http://fff.org/2013/06/13/why-no-perjury-indictment-for-clapper/

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Suggested New Congressional Bill Rules




 

__._,_.___
           


         
Yahoo! Groups
 
.

__,_._,___

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Obama polls slip more

Polls show Obama's real worry: NSA leaks erode trust in government

With the NSA revelations doubling down on the IRS and AP scandals, the president's approval rating is hitting new lows

Barack Obama nsa
Obama said Friday privacy concerns also related to private corporations, which he said collect more data than the federal government. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

Thursday, the Guardian released a poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday nights by Public Policy Polling looking at America's reaction to the National Security Agency (NSA) controversy. The public appears to be reacting negatively to the revelations – and it seems to be hurting President Obama.

We found 50% of American voters believe the NSA should not be collecting telephone or internet records, compared to the 44% who think they should. The results hold even when respondents were told that the data the government is collecting is "metadata" (and not necessarily actual content of communications).

These results are consistent with a CBS News pollFox News poll, andYouGov survey that showed only 38%, 32%, and 35% of Americans respectively approved of phone record collection in order to reduce the chance of a terrorist attack. A Gallup poll was consistent with these, showing only 37% approved monitoring of Americans' phone and internet use.

The results conflict with a Pew Research/Washington Post survey, which showed 56% of Americans found the NSA's tracking of phone records to be acceptable. Why the difference?

As Mark Blumenthal pointed out Wednesday, the difference could well have to do with the Pew Research/Washington Post poll pointing out that the government had a "court order". A court order would, to most, probably imply something less sinister; other pollsters had not made this distinction.

That said, the Guardian survey confirms the Pew survey in another important way. Nate Cohn recognized Wednesday that only 45% of Americans approved of the government monitoring of Americans' emails and computer information. The Guardian survey discovered a very similar 41% of Americans who feel this way.

It's fair to say the majority of Americans are, at the very least, unhappy with one or more aspects of the NSA data-mining revelations. The question is, though, whether or not President Obama will suffer political fallout from the leaks. The answer seems to be that he very well may.

First, Americans are increasingly catching up with the details of the controversy. Only 27% of Americans Pew/Washington Post said they were paying attention close attention to the NSA leaks. In fact, a full third said they weren't following the news closely at all. That number, however, was only through 9 June. The YouGov poll conducted through the 10 June has the percentage who had not heard any news at all about the leaks at 10%. The Guardian survey, taken through 11 June, has it down to 8%. So, by now, most Americans have heard about the NSA leaks.

Second, Americans claim they are less likely to back Obama because of the information released to the public: 48% of American voters in our poll say they are less likely to support him because of the recent disclosures, while only 17% says they are more likely to support him. Fifty-two percent of voters who identify as independent said they were less likely to support the president, versus 8% who were more likely. Even Democrats, who are the most likely to think the leaks aren't a big deal, are by a margin of 3pt less likely, rather than more, to back Obama because of the controversy.

Third, while it can be misleading to compare between pollsters to detect a trend, Obama's approval rating does seem to be sliding (when controlling for pollster). Obama's rating among registered voters in theYouGov survey (pdf) is only 46% (only 44% among adults). These are two-month lows.

Among all adults, the 44% number is Obama's lowest since the November election. Obama's net approval of -2pt in the Gallup daily tracker is also the lowest since his re-election. The same is true in the Fox poll, where his 44% approval is the lowest in over a year.

More worrisome for Obama is that his approval may be going down even as Americans think the economy is approving. Consumer sentiment rose to its highest level in six years in May at 84.5 in that index. Research by political scientists Robert Erikson, Michael Mackuen and James Stimson in Macro Polity shows that the No 1 predictor of changes in presidential approval is changes in consumer sentiment. In fact, it predicts over 90% of the changes.

Check out this chart from Republican strategist Adrian Gray published before we learned about the NSA leaks:

Consumer sentiment graph

Obama's three-month average approval rating had been tracking nicely with consumer sentiment through most of his presidency. It did rise above where one would expect, during his re-election honeymoon, but it's continued to fall even further below where we would expect, post-honeymoon.

The overall Huffpollster aggregate, even without the trackers, shows his approval dropping to an all-time low level since re-election. Some surveys such as the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll show no movement in Obama's approval. Even if there were no movement, this still isn't a good sign for the president.

The point is, Obama's approval should be rising given higher consumer sentiment. But it isn't.

When the IRS and Associated Press scandals first broke, I pointed outthat the one factor that predicts election results better than consumer sentiment is trust in government. Consumer sentiment and trust usually track together – except in times of government controversy. It's one of the reasons the Democrats lost so many seats in 1994 during the first Clinton administration, even as consumer sentiment was decently high.

Trust in government after these scandals has been falling. In the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 55% of Americans said the IRS targeting made them doubt the "overall honesty and integrity" of the Obama administration. Only 48% of voters in Fox News poll taken after the release of the NSA information said Obama was "honest and trustworthy" – the lowest level the poll ever recorded. More than a third (35%) of voters believe the administration has been less open than previous administrations – a record high.

In light of the public's negative reaction to the NSA leaks, trust in government could fall further. This would likely lead to a drop in the president's approval. At this point, these controversies about government overreach, including the NSA revelations, look to be hurting Obama, even if his approval ratings are just sliding rather than crashing. The question going forward is whether fallout from the NSA revelations accelerates that decline.

• Editor's note: this article was updated with new material at 10.15am on 13 June

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.