Here they go again, the very same collectivist manipulators whose ability to agree, to have a consensus amongst themselves and use the force of government (history shows the majority of governments agreed with and kept slavery a form of industry since before the time of Socrates), to tell us a long drawn out fable, irrespective of the true climate change: people are no longer willing to accept stupid.
You won't find me pushing the “I'm right, you're wrong,” or, “they're stupid” position. Yeah, in my solid belief people have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, an unalienable Right to the solace of their own mind, body and Soul, I am very hesitant to take the absolutist argument route.
However, as a Conservative who knows climate change is a constant called “the weather,” I will recognize the extreme weather as something to review that historically this isn't anything new. But, if something comes to the forefront in the course of the whole Global Warming investigation, irrespective of Global Warm... Er... Climate Change being a fraud, that reveals much that's ignored, much that's apparently not useful to using the narrative's governmental purpose as an excuse for limiting our freedom by further intrusion into our lives, but proves there truly is a great threat to the existence of mankind, I am going to take this stand.
You see, to deny extreme weather may be a foolish thing. In the whole of our Solar System, our true environment since the Sun is an important part of the continued existence of life on this planet, we have not had much capability to have in-depth knowledge of neighboring planets.
This is why the corruption by President Obama, Liberal EPA spending, University, Union, and Business predatory use of scientific grant money in patronage to achieve a slavery to environmentalism – the funding meant to cause a Democratic consensus in the scientific community's body politic – has brought a clarity to me of what all these agenda seekers, whose agenda apparently is more important than mankind, have intentionally ignored.
We'll start with this article about Mars “Mars is Melting” is the title, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm. Note that this is from NASA, yes, those scientists we pay to make such discoveries and analyses have come to announce the fact of this article's title. Now, I don't know about you, but when I see 2 planets in one Solar System are having climate issues, I'd tend to believe it's very unlikely (due to our lack of any regular travel, population, or activities on Mars) that anything man is doing on Earth is causing any sort of climate change on Mars or otherwise, but we haven't enough data to begin to claim we've paid attention to Mars that long. However, this is the beginning of this very short, factual, scientific story, to which I have no need to quote the article's contents, the title speaks for itself, and it is NASA after all.
So to end our torrid short drama of facts that began with saying the fable of climate change and its agenda-driven authors are seeking slavery by promoting what they know is wrong, goes now to a 3rd planet. Yes a 3rd planet in our Solar System affected by climate change, Jupiter, “Jupiter's Great Red Spot is Shrinking,” http://phys.org/news146328763.html. Fascinating isn't it that a scientist at Liberal Berkeley is being ignored. But maybe the Sun's light and the atmosphere around it aren't important to life on Earth, as that would be rather necessary for it not to be a part of the Earth's environment right? But, au contraire, as the great fable that Obama's politicos sensationalize as a “report” to achieve changing the subject from the Obama “Stonewall, Lie, and Spy on the American People” Administration being uncovered for these very things, we come to the grand power grab and lie after healthcare: Global Warm... er... Climate Change, AGAIN!
I say lie because.... Well, you ever heard of the Heliosphere? It's essentially a level of atmosphere around the Sun that helps protect our planet, Mars, Jupiter, and the other planets in our Solar System from Cosmic Rays, (Cosmic Rays are explained here, http://www.nscl.msu.edu/files/PAN%20cosmic%20ray%20articles.pdf, and, no, I did not read the whole thing in detail, however it is here for reference and is comprehensive to defining Cosmic Rays and the history of their study, so it's a good read for the far more scientific minded than myself.)
The Heliosphere is produced by the Solar Wind, that has been losing pressure, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/, which, of course, has correlative affect of Cosmic Rays reaching a 50 year high, http://www.space.com/7349-cosmic-rays-hit-50-year-high.html – Be ready for more correlations to come!
I want to share this article, that naturally, and probably, due to the likely source of the research grant for it deriving from funds featuring a proposal with the words “global warming” in it, makes every effort to relate cosmic rays with chlorofluorocarbons (“CFCs”) while yet explaining much of their assumptions remain unexplained, and ignoring the Heliosphere in their supposed “analysis,” http://physics.aps.org/story/v8/st8.
So, here we are with 2 planets in our Solar System with known extreme changes to their climate – polar caps melting & a massive hurricane shrinking – with obvious correlative that they both lack using the words “climate change” in their report (and that does correlate with them likely not being funded by climate change advocates as these reports do directly evidence the extreme weather notion is not terrestrial to the Earth alone) with perfect shameful Liberal hypocrisy in ignoring that wonderful Berkeley scientist and this fact: 3 planets in total in our Solar System show climate change.
Add in that they have known and studied Cosmic Rays in relation to CFCs, while studies on the Solar Wind and Cosmic Rays show likely changes in our Sun, and all of this, all of it, occurring during the very same time period that man is being blamed for extreme weather and government is, naturally, jumping through every hoop to embrace this idea, of course, for the government expansion and revenue generation it may provide to government and no other reason. Does this blaming of man at any level make sense in light of other planets in our Solar System being affected, heated as their polar caps melt, or a supposed hurricane suddenly shrinking as it is on Jupiter? Does this make sense in light of the knowledge of the Heliosphere and Cosmic Ray relationship?
Too bad I'm not done, let's go one more in the about 2 pages I am writing here regarding the ignored group of true environmental variables of the Cosmic Ray variety, “Cosmic Explosion Blinds NASA Satellite,” http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cosmic-Explosion-Blinds-NASA-Satellite-147704.shtml. Note that this Cosmic Explosion of a Gamma Burst, they surmise was from 5 billion years away.
Thus we can conclude delicacy is the state of our existence, of our planet's persistence in a universe of untold and unknown possibility, to which we are lacking even a “pion's” worth of knowledge amongst all of mankind (pions, small particles first detected in Cosmic Rays, http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/pion.html ). This renders it impossible for any definitive method to conclude extreme weather is caused by mankind. Observationalists will say “it is scientific observation,” ignoring the formula of assumptions predicated on variables to the exclusion of the unknown that is the entirety of that observation, and to the ignorance of every scientific observation I've just cited, to blindly ignore that we can and, by “science,” fool ourselves into claiming as fact whatever we want to believe, for whatever self-interest, politically or financially that we'll gain, simply by assuming and rationalizing (limiting) our view to the context of those self-interested beliefs – which appears to be what this article has well illustrated about the so-called scientific community and climate change scientists.
When science loses its objectivity, and government's interest is to exploit that departure for government's purposes, science and the bureaucracies that use it are a means to slavery for sake of their funding – because politicians & their parties want to keep their seats of power and exploit the bureaucracy.
I'm just glad Russia's President Vladimir Putin is invading the Ukraine because of his passionate concern over extreme weather and to force them to adhere to climate change standards.... Alas, I digress.
Thank you for reading and sharing this, God Bless,
As the political parties and their agendas are the means to an end, a justified means as Democrat begets Liberal who begets Communist, and as Conservative begets Republican which begets Progressive Lite, the People are stuck with a society without the objectivity required for any semblance of governance, self or otherwise. “Objectivity,” politically, has become a game of wordplay where the object is to keep the subject something other than the entirely one-sided view that government knows best.
Case in point: Obamacare.
We've heard them say it over and over again, “Obamacare is the Law of the Land.” Anyone else get the memo that Obamacare is Constitutional Amendment 28? Yeah, I didn't think that happened either, those Amendment things are pretty obvious as they require quite a bit to be done:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.
Yeah it's a high hurdle, one that one party having super majorities in both houses of Congress can't accomplish either, you know those first 2 years of Obama's Presidency when they passed Obamacare but didn't increase minimum wage (the big divisive White House whine of 2014), or address immigration reform, nor balance the budget and create a downward government expense trajectory by efficiency, transparency, and all the other empty promises of Barack Obama.... But they did pass Obamacare, a mere Legislative enactment subject to likely repeal as The Affordable Care Act was entirely a partisan enactment without one single opposing party vote. I'm sure glad Al Qaeda is on the run or Obama'd be a total failure, well, save that he'll be “flexible” with Putin after the 2012 elections.... Anyone else wondering if that was about the Ukraine and Crimea? At least we're not leading from behind and Putin knows not to violate the border of a Sovereign state that was once the possession of the Communist Soviet Union and take part of the country. No, I am not trying to emphasize anything nor set forth one “smidgen” of sarcasm, that's just not something I know how to do (some things are just irresistible, though obviously saving the lives of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods wasn't one of them for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and/or David Petraeus. But hey, if that's what it takes to get a Christian arrested for exercising their Free Speech by making a youtube video trailer who are we to question the government, right?)
Luckily, I didn't digress or this article would be a complete waste of time. You see, all of these things brought up go to the same Democratic Party/Barack Obama issues: partisan agenda and politics of power.
For Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, their sole party's most government power expanding effort has been to have government be the source of and creator of a right, and Obamacare is the enactment of the U.S. Government granting healthcare as a right by mandating purchase of insurance coverage (that's the scheme of the thing).
However, and this is the point of all of this, there was this person Iran chose to send to the United States as their U.N. Ambassador, Hamid Aboutalebi, who it appears had some involvement with the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis that occurred under the former worst President of the United States Jimmy Carter, and this led to something very rare indeed: A unanimous, absolutely bi-partisan and fast-tracked piece of legislation that is summarized as banning access to the United States by barring issuance of a visa “to any nominee to the United Nations deemed to have engaged in terrorist activity.” I repeat and emphasize this act unanimously passed both houses of Congress! (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/)
Now, if it isn't clear yet, Constitutional Amendments need a larger than majority vote to be amendments to the Constitution, both by Congress, 2/3, and when Amended by the States alone or in approving an Amendment proposed by the national Government, 3/4 (38 would be needed today to Amend the Constitution).
Obamacare was passed solely by a partyline vote, and though there were Democrat supermajorities in both Houses at the time, these were not passed according to the threshold to Amend the Constitution (or I am sure we would have had “The Obamacare Rights of Fairness Amendment” instead).
So now, in reviewing the vote count for this legislation to ban Hamid Aboutalebi, it was passed by a greater threshold than a Constitutional Amendment requires, a unanimous passage with 0 against threshold by both the House and Senate, the entire Congress, yet, Barack Obama doesn't for an instant see this obvious criteria to what makes the Constitution alone the Law of the Land, the Article V threshold being achieved and surpassed as a showing that the object of the Amendment's purpose is something well beyond party politics and ideological difference.
How, other than political gamesmanship, does Barack Obama miss the absolute clarity to a piece of legislation having nothing to do with the government borrowing, spending, taxing, and/or expanding, having received unanimous approval by the entire Congress, a certainty that the threshold of being “Law of the Land” has been surpassed, and though not an Amendment, the unanimity assures none would argue with the mandatory and non-discretionary enforcement of this law by the public servant in the Executive Branch, the President of the United States? By Barack Obama, the Progressive Community Organizer from Chicago, making sure that Barack Obama has the final say, even if the entirety of both parties agree to something:
“Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress’s concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our nation,” Mr. Obama said.
“But he said presidents also have a duty to defend their constitutional turf — in this case, the right to decide who is accepted as an ambassador.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/18/.
United as is possible is what a unanimous vote states, a certain assurance to the office holder of the Executive Branch who is to enforce the law that the legislation is, as written, self-executing and intended to be enforced as an unequivocal statement of the Will of the People, of America, to be regarded with no less power than the Constitution itself, easily affectionately it could be referred to as the “Law of the Land” as neither the political parties nor the people are in dispute over the law.... Which begs the question: We cannot say the same for Obamcare now, can we? No, but the label... oh yes, they'll put the label “Law of the Land” on Obamacare. And the President, well there's no advisory to Obamacare, by a signing Statement. Instead he unilaterally just changes the regulations to accommodate the latest regulatory scheme to replace whatever legislative (and likely constitutional) scheme they can't make work according to the express terms of the law as passed by the Democratic Party alone. You see the lack of any sense to government, by tautology and holding partisan agendas in higher esteem than the unanimity of the political parties, as though a disdain of even this most rare occasion of the members of Congress carrying out their Constitutional Role as a united voice of the People as a whole?
Maybe this will better illustrate this, using the whole idea of “Progressive logic” we'll apply the same method used for the IRS “Progressive Income Tax.” Okay, so if there is any measure by which Obamacare can be called the Law of the Land, the Article V Standard of the Constitution (3/4 of the States' approval required) would be an exponential increase in import, the “tax” of a Constitutional Amendment as the Law of the Land, which, thus applied again to an act of Congress specific to the Constitutional Requirement of National Defense, Foreign Commerce, and the concise meaning of “general Welfare” that barring issuance of a Visa to those who are and remain a threat to the United States is, we are witnessing another exponential increase of import to the supreme power in weight of authority of the Ted Cruz law barring Visas due solely to the lack of any opposition amongst those who do the legislating, and to which there is no margin for question, rebuke, or discretion whatsoever by those charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States (the whole point of an “Executive Branch” is not as a second guessing, over-mind conscience as to whether the representatives of the people, who it takes quite a bit to get to agree unanimously on anything, really mean what they passed without any objection amongst themselves as a body. There is no greater authority than the People whose voice is their representatives when the volume of their voice is as one voice – unanimous. There is no power in the Executive Branch to pick and choose what is done by the representatives of the People and providing that their Will is to be ignored or “advisory,” particularly when unanimous, unless, of course, we're saying the most wealthy can legitimately decide only to pay the taxes they want to pay (in staying with the IRS Progressive Income Tax illustration).
You see, though the President has certain powers regarding objects within the sphere of the Executive Branch according to the Constitution (the United Nations didn't exist in 1789), if you look closely at the news articles, Hamid Aboutalebi is being nominated to be Iran's Ambassador to the U.N., not the United States of America. The need for a Visa is a technicality so this Ambassador can travel to New York when required for United Nations Business. Don't get me wrong, I am glad Ted Cruz sponsored a bill in the Senate to effectively ban issuance of a visa to nominees of rogue nations with questionable history and intention who have intimately associated with our enemies – terrorists – a bill that was expeditiously taken up by the House and on President Barack Obama's desk in record breaking time. But to what discretion – loss of power paranoia – is Barack Obama acting up with a tantrum as though being denied any powers regarding receiving Ambassadors? I mean, is Barack Obama also President of the U.N. or is this the overactive political meddlesome imagination of a narcissistic Community Organizer who tried to hide that from us by naming his dog “B.O.?”
I bet you're glad I didn't digress again, phew, it was a close one!
Thank you for reading and sharing this,
The 5th Amendment is intended as a limit on government. So, when a government employee asserts not testifying on the grounds of this as a privilege or right, it is as though the Constitution “granted” a right to the People by the Constitution, which, by their assertion is actually an immediate statement of the entire public spectacle of the Congressional hearings on the IRS misconduct as a dog and pony show by all who fail to appreciate the directive, and informative, language of the 5th Amendment.
First, why I say without any reservation that the 5th Amendment is a limit on government and not a grant of rights from We the People, is that it is pure comedy to think we'd be granting ourselves limited rights by our ratification of the Constitution, which, in fact, is what instituted the government with its limited rights and powers to specific objects in the National sphere. This is what “We the Posterity” are required to know -- American People who appreciate the Founders intent and purpose of the Constitution, “Constituents” today, and anyone not appreciating Our Founders purposes for the Constitution has no capacity to be a Constituent (i.e. Those not naturalized and having learned the Constitution as a matter of their civic duty to uphold as a Constituent).
Using the actual statement of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights I submit this original intent and purpose, and the irrefutable evidence the Bill of Rights repeat and further elucidate the limits of the rights of government and their limitations in relation to the American People, the terms and conditions of the consent of the governed to institute a national government. (Note all emphasis is mine, though it may not display on some sites where this is posted):
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” -- http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.
And now the 5th Amendment itself:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Note that the limitation of government compulsion of a witness to testify against themselves is specifically reserved for “any criminal case” which means the government isn't limited in scope of compulsion of a citizen to testify in a hearing of one of the houses of Congress, or in any other civil investigative matter (as even administrative hearings are civil matters, and not criminal matters).
So, to help appreciate the perversion that's been done to this limit on government we must first recognize this fact, that there is no statement to suggest in any way that this limit on government is a privilege or grant of some right to the people, (It is most notable how there is no “declaratory statement” of something like, “the following right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself is hereby granted by this Fifth Amendment to the Constitution” or anything similar in the preamble to the Bill of Rights.) especially one that would require a Citizen to voice/assert such right for such limit to be imposed on the government. It appears a theater is created by a person making the assertion of their right, versus asserting that the government has no right to ask, that it is limited by the 5th Amendment from pursuing them any further. But see, then the lawyers haven't anything to argue about, and the government no ambiguity it must overcome, to then use the very Supreme Court created by the Constitution to expand government. No, instead the citizen disavows the Constitution's imposed limit on government in exchange for testifying to the legal fiction of some “Constitutional Right” or as a privilege asserted according to the Government's interpretation of the document executed by the People to form the government on the Peoples' terms to assure the legitimacy of American government (see “consent of the governed” in Declaration of Independence, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html).
The Constitution (as the 5th Amendment is part of the Constitution itself as a ratified Amendment), the only Law of the Land in fact, specifically dictates to government “No person shall.... nor shall,...” etc. Shall is a commandment, that when preceded by “no person,” “nor,” or some other object, the shall is to apply as a mandatory prohibitive, it is a Constitutional commandment upon the institution being constituted to express without any uncertainty those things that are absolutely forbidden to be done, with particulars/criteria for imposition of this limit, such as “in any criminal case,” stated thereafter, which naturally also explains this to the institution being constituted when these acts of government, such as compelling testimony, are not prohibited.
With the prevailing belief, the perversion of our Constitution as though granting rights to the people explained, I now take you to Lois Lerner's “I invoke my 5th Amendment right” on advice of her counsel. I hope you all send a copy of this to Darrell Issa for the first thing he must do is declare “these hearings are an exercise in American civics and the civil process of government, that, though the testimony presented can be used by the Justice Department if they were to pursue a prosecution of Lois Lerner or to subpoena her to testify in prosecution of someone else, this hearing is not a criminal case, and, that she has one more chance to testify before the committee in the interest of the public good and general Welfare” or, Mr. Issa should continue, “I will hold her in contempt of court by using the judicial civil process of the Federal District Court personally to gain her testimony.”
This would mean Eric Holder isn't going after her for criminal contempt of Congress, and that she could be subject to being held in jail until she is willing to testify in a courtroom. Mr. Issa should move for a Lis Pendens against all of Lois Lerner's assets and forms of income as they are all subject to lien and being frozen, justified thus: “Miss Lerner's funds appear to have been commingled with activities she herself has decided she cannot speak about without fear of criminal prosecution, and, according to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, as well as the well established doctrine of Fraud Vitiates from U.S. v. Throckmorton, her income derived as a government employee of the IRS, a department of the United States Treasury, may have all been derived from these corrupt and illegal activities during her tenure at the IRS, including, but not limited to, those funds in her retirement and pension accounts, as well as any personal investments she has made. This would also include her residence and/or any premises for which she has used these funds to pay to occupy. I am compelled to seek that this court freeze her assets as she hasn't indicated there was no other information sharing during the course of her employment that did not lead to illicit gains from insider trading, or using her knowledge of the tax code and pending IRS investigations and cases to determine what investments she would pursue and what investments she would avoid including in her investment portfolio. Any of these is possible until Miss Lerner has cleared up the specifics of her activities relating to targeting specific groups and their individual members who, so far, proved to all be American Citizens and did nothing in violation of the law but were penalized in asserting their elective and political franchise rights. Thus, Miss Lerner’s entirety of wealth falls under suspicion of corruption and I have no choice but to assume a general application of the law until such time as Lois Lerner testifies to the specifics necessary to make specific application of the law, which, by her testimony, she may demonstrate she is not a party to, but that, without reasonable testimony or evidence that has been thoroughly investigated and reviewed by myself and the House Oversight Committee I have no choice as a Congressman, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and, as a public officer who cannot let a crime be committed in my presence, but to pursue Lois Lerner's Assets and sources of income in a civil court case in hopes of attaining her testimony, testimony that I hope includes evidence that will clear her of any wrongdoing or shows she had little choice in the matter. In fact, I would be glad to find that Lois Lerner is a victim of the situation that she's already admitted occurring as part of an apology for wrongdoing she later claims she didn't do as this whole investigation was initiated by Lois Lerner carrying on a public 3rd party discloser that waives all of her 5th Amendment protections in regard to the issue she was apologizing for, and in fact shows Lois Lerner went to great lengths to expose apparently for the positive public relations purposes of such an apology from the IRS, that however remains a direct admission by Lois Lerner through that 3rd party disclosure of questionable and suspicious activities that actually occurred when she was employed by the IRS and representing the United States Treasury.”
Long and probably a bit verbose? Perhaps, but to the point, and not letting another Obama agitator get away with using their government badge, their “shield,” as a means of avoidance for being held accountable for corruption that's transpired and that this government employee is, at minimum, a witness to.
You see the perversion? A government employee asserting the 5th Amendment to limit, to even obstruct, the government's ability to intrude into their life, while, when they were an IRS employee they authorized and appear to have been part of a scheme to ignore the 5th Amendment limit on government in relation to 501 (c) (4) applicants who, as directed by law, were voluntarily applying for recognition to assure they could legally participate in America's political process. Lerner's plea of the 5th Amendment is a perfect Alinsky mockery of America's system of government.
To emphasize, just imagine if you asserted the 5th Amendment to not file a tax return, as the 1040 says right over where you sign, as a form of agreement and considered your declaration by signature:
“Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.” -- http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
Continuing the emphasis, that last part is a legal disclaimer inserted by the IRS to hold tax filing preparers harmless from audit for doing another person's return, setting up the IRS presumption that the preparer only used the taxpayer's information that they had knowledge of (i.e. provided by the taxpayer), “ Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.” Whatever you tell them is all they are responsible for, and any omissions, the common prosecution is for failing to state amounts of income subject to tax, by your signature you're liable but the preparer is not unless you can prove you told them and can prove they failed to include the amount (Of course such disclosure to the preparer is a 3rd party disclosure and deemed a waiver to your assertion any 5th Amendment “right” protection, in government's interpretation of it).
Lois Lerner's 5th Amendment Right, the one the rest of us don't have when it comes to filing our taxes or applying for a 501 (c) (4) recognition, would also not result in our receiving paid leave from our job – we're treated worse than an IRS officer who violated the most well established boundaries of IRS limits and we're not even a part of a scandal to use the IRS to deny some Americans, Constituents, their unalienable Right of political franchise!
Am I the only one that can see this abuse of the People's desire to do what's right being doubly exploited by the very means of government excusing government actors who have a desire to do what's wrong, and that it appears the rest of those in government want them to get away with it to set a precedent against the people that only leaves us with less gumption to assert our rightful power as the Sovereign Authority (see Founder & Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, http://govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/)?
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
Question: Can a policy of the United States Senate violate the Constitution?
The Progressive 17th Amendment states:
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
“When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
“This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html.
So what does this mean? This means that Senators represent the voices of their Constituents in their State. I repeat: Senators represent the voices of their Constituents in their State.
The First Amendment is rather certain in stating how Congress (both Houses) cannot abridge the Freedom of Speech of an American:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.
For Harry Reid to change a rule after 200 years, after being the sole tyrant to decide what bills passed by the House will reach the Senate floor (2010 partial list of House Bills Despot Senator Harry Reid ignored, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.189, and one bill he took up when it was politically favorable, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.190.), is for Harry Reid to reserve the sole right of filibuster to himself, as his actions are to filibuster for partisan purposes the 2010 election, and, in so doing, to silence the voices of the American People. Senator Reid doesn't have this right, and, to be sure Harry Reid is the epitome of “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In a court room he'd be an exemplar of the meaning of this phrase. I hope the new dictionaries take up this idea and post his picture next to “corruption,” as a defining image, the icon of it.
Steamed? Yes I am, because the Progressives wanted the States to give up their original right to appoint State Senators and they did, ratifying the 17th Amendment so we have 2 popularly elected Houses of Congress (which makes no sense) and the State governments lose their representation in the National Government (which assures the People can't use the National Government to destroy the states). But, now that this popularly elected body isn't functioning as it did when Harry Reid had 60 votes to pass whatever he wanted, while the House was the same, in a grasp for unending power, Harry Reid puts forth a policy change to the Senate Floor to remove the voices of the American People who voted in the minority party in the Senate.
Liberal, Independent, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, etc., I do not care what affiliation you have, there is no excuse for one person to assume and assert this much power, especially when it is not granted to them by the Constitution. May we all finally recognize the dangers of centralized power in reviewing Harry Reid, that we cannot trust people to be reasonable, Honorable, and act with integrity when it comes to the powers they were given by the Constitution, for they will seek to claim that these powers are far more encompassing than they actually are, relying on our laziness and being uninformed as pavement to be walked on in their Progressive path to Tyranny.
Thank you for reading and sharing this, and may we cease being footstools to these presumptively powerful and act to enforce our written Constitution,
I have 20 minutes to write and post this, probably won't make the deadline before the House vote but I have to to try.
The title says it all doesn't it? I mean, the GOP and Republicans frustrated with Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee over the idea “there is no endgame” of de-funding Obamacare decided to abuse them directly about it, which translates: “You are sacrificing the party for principle? Are you crazy? Listening to the People is a bad idea! We aren't supposed to uphold our campaign promises and Oath. Who do you Freshman Senators think you are challenging us senior statesman? We're gonna take you down now,” as they speed dial Karl Rove to get together a strategy of surrender, the American People are appreciating the 21 hour filibuster that said, “I am upholding my campaign promises and my Oath of Office, Party be damned.”
This is, at least to this writer, what appears to have happened, for the GOP and Senate Republicans made no effort to take advantage of the goodwill Senator Cruz's filibuster brought. No, nothing. Nada! Zip!
The so-called “Conservative” party failed to embrace nor use Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Mike Lee's putting their politics aside for principle, the GOP failing to come to terms with the fact the People of the United States of America want honest, objective, and Honorable representatives, and not politicians scrounging for their cut of the American Taxpayer pie (with ice cream, whip cream, and a cherry on top).
The travesty isn't that Washington D.C. did this, but is instead how their actions show they don't care about their Oath or the Constitution it is intended to assure they preserve and protect, and isn't this mirrored by the very situation with the World War II Veterans' Memorial and failing to pay death benefit based on some legal interpretation of a law authorizing it, or any of the other myriad political stunts to emphasize a shut down when the political result will be yielded in spite of the actual pain caused to Americans? And consider these stunts were done to those of our U.S. Military and their families whose loved ones all took an Oath of their office as Soldiers to do the very same thing as every member of our government!
Rest assured the “Affordable Care Act,” Obamacare, was never intended to work, never intended to achieve anything but what the Progressive movement has been doing with vigor for the last 5 years with a Partisan President in the White House: 1) marginalizing Constitutional requirement for our laws http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.121, 2) assuring acceptance of “Faith and Credit” Taxation, http://www.allbusiness.com/glossaries/full-faith-credit/4951086-1.html as a tool of destruction, and 3) to destroy private American Wealth by government waste that is ignored, for example, http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/09/26/gm-general-motors-shares-treasury-taxpayers/2875781/ and http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-fundraises-with-players-in-solyndra-scandal/.
Thus, the more absolute tragedy in all of this: The American People don't even realize that the Progressive agenda of destroying America by destroying our private wealth is all that Obamacare serves!
May we come to terms with our error and take up the mantle of Our Founders, to be the Posterity they envisioned, one of Free People in self-government with objective, Honorable, representative servants, and not a people destined to embrace subject servitude to self-proclaimed “leaders” from on high and their protection.
Thank you for reading and please share,
P.S. Apologize in advance for errors, omissions, typos, etc., for this wasn't edited at all.
First, we must open with Obama's views on military spending:
“I am the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning [Iraq War] and as President I will end it.
“2nd, I will Cut 10s of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize Space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to insure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
“3rd, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off Hair-trigger Alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=fU4sVQV3Lhk.
What must be said: The Iraq War ended according to George Bush's arrangements via a Strategic Framework Agreement in 2008 that was brought about due to Iraq expressing to the U.N. in 2007 their desire to have the annual extensions to U.N. Resolution 1511 to 2008 be the last time (http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448)
And, no, I am not going to go over the entire video as the 2nd point made by Obama is the one of import to Americans during the Progressive Shutdown (suggests Twitter hashtag “#ProgressiveShutDown”).
I'd imagine this chart of the budget for the Missile Defense Agency when reviewed for the years Obama has been President, the top row the President's annual budget “requests,” will best illustrate Obama's Hypocrisy, http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/histfunds.pdf. I'll simplify however by summing the total, which is $41.9 billion. Now remember, Obama said “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” Obama's 1st year in office he allocated $9.3 billion to an agency explaining itself as follows:
“The Missile Defense Agency
“The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is a research, development, and acquisition agency within the Department of Defense. Our workforce includes government civilians, military service members, and contractor personnel in multiple locations across the United States. We are focused on retaining and recruiting a dedicated workforce interested in supporting our national security.
“As we develop, test, and field an integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), the MDA works closely with the Combatant Commanders (e.g. Pacific Command, Northern Command, etc.) who will rely on the system to protect the United States, our forward deployed forces, and our friends and allies from hostile ballistic missile attack. We work with the Combatant Commanders to ensure that we develop a robust BMDS technology and development program to address the challenges of an evolving threat. We are also steadily increasing our international cooperation by supporting mutual security interests in missile defense.” -- Emphasis mine, http://www.mda.mil/about/about.html.
I emphasized that text to correlate the hypocrisy of what Obama said to the American People, to illustrate Obama's bald-faced lie as a matter of fact, and this is just one scintilla of what can be found if We the People look for the information. You see I have no trouble with what the MDA does, nor that President Obama has chosen as President of the United States to assure they have a budget of, on average, $8 Billion per year for Ballistic Missile Systems Development. But, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama sold the American people with an appearance of conviction and sincerity in touting a lie to gain the anti-war vote and exploit our tiring of the Iraq War, and it appears this was solely for those political points and purposes, nothing more, not one scintilla of actual conviction in practice to his 2nd point in the video above.
Which takes us to the government shutdown and telling the American People it's those Republicans who are at fault, which, to say accurately would be said something like this, “Those Republicans and Tea Party Conservatives who pass bills to fund the rest of the government, including the Veterans, that I, Barack Obama, as President of the United States, will not negotiate with, those people passing those bills are the ones obstructing government and putting the Faith and Credit of the United States in jeopardy, not me and my not negotiating with them, don't blame me for what I do, or in this case don't do, it's always someone else at fault.” Words have meanings and “not negotiate” is directly correlative to “obstructing” as an act of obstruction. Passing bills to appropriate funding where they deem fit is the Constitutional Right and Power of the People's House as the lower chamber of Congress to do according to the Constitution, and cannot be viewed in any way as an obstruction because they don't appropriate for something they didn't deem fit. Thus, it appears blindingly obvious that the rhetoric spoken by our President is just another campaign to promote another lie for the continuing saga of political purposes in the Narcissistic Adventures of Barack Obama.
So now, about that $500,000 “death gratuity” being denied 4 Soldiers and 1 Marine's family, http://news.yahoo.com/shutdown-slows-aid-families-u-troops-killed-afghanistan-162048761.html. It comes down to this: It is unbelievable that a President who lied about what he'd do to missile development and convincingly sold the end of a war arranged by his predecessor as his current administration's doing cannot find the means as Commander-In-Chief to make sure the families of our fallen are treated with dignity for the sacrifice of their direct blood and treasure of priceless value. These soldiers and their families are asking a mere pittance for the “credit” they extended us in the life of their loved one, they are a creditor far more worthy than China or anyone else. What greater moral obligation to “our creditors” is there than paying our soldiers according to what we agreed to for them?
But, I guess when you have a President who would lie, cheat, and steal for his “political career” alone you can't expect much of him that isn't an immoral adventure in narcissism, I mean, if paying the families of these dead soldiers could give Barack Obama a boost in the polls he'd surely do it, that if the soldier didn't have to die to pay them $100,000 Barack Obama would be paying it instantly -- exchanging the money for their vote. That's the way of the Welfare system isn't it?
Thank you for reading and please share this article,
P.S. Apologies for any difficulties in reading this as I was unable to have it proofread prior to posting.
No, I don't represent America, but if there were ever something that needed a reply it is the current pushback by the Progressives in the Democratic Party (almost all of them) and their multi-front brushstroking.
October 6th, 2013 Special Ops is sent into a foreign country to get the leader of Al Shabab and carrying on some other military operation in as well (didn't get the details), all signed off by the Nobel Peace Prize Winner of 2009 Barack Obama, yet, we were all told we could do nothing to help Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods in Benghazi Libya September 11th, 2012, all the while we had drones overhead videotaping. Hi there, Barack Obama! You didn't think anyone would point out the obvious hypocrisy in this? The obviousness of the political purpose of sending soldiers into harm’s way during a government shut down when the Progressive Democrat “Commander-in-Chief” is having domestic approval troubles and uses the military to raise his approval rating? But, of course, he fails to send out the military when it's a Presidential Re-Election and the campaign rhetoric of that same President regarding his foreign policy and relations would be brought to the forefront of being questioned by the American People. Instead, no one is sent to save American Ambassador Chris Stevens, his aide, and the two CIA annex operatives who rushed to help our Ambassador against orders to stand down, placing their entire careers in jeopardy.
Yes, while the DNC wants to claim something to the effect of “Boehner is holding America's debt hostage until defunding of Obamacare and other Tea Party demands are met,” (DNC Response not posted to their website at the time of writing this article) the reality is that the U.S. House, the popularly elected body of the U.S. Government since 1789 Ratification of the Constitution, has had and remains the sole body of right and authority over appropriations, and no, this wasn't affected by the 14th Amendment (See, http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.238 and http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?item.239).
Now, I wrote the above paragraphs one after the other on purpose, because if you think there is no relation between the issues, my hope is that you'll see the political angle is all that mattered on both counts, that Barack Obama views the military as a vehicle for political purposes and getting domestic political agendas passed by affecting the popularity ratings polls in his favor. Benghazi, Libya September 11th, 2012 is a travesty that deserves the transparent and “open government” the Democratic Party claims is its hallmark on its own website, http://www.democrats.org/issues/open_government.
Now, since the line of political purpose is obvious, let me share the rest of the obvious debt and debt ceiling lie the Democratic Party is laying out.
First, The House has been passing a budget since 2010 and Senator Harry Reid has failed in his duty to join in and complete one. This means the government doesn't have a set of figures to compare their spending to as an official “budgetary spending limit.” Now the political usefulness of this is that no one can go into the media spotlight and say these magic words, “We spent 68 billion dollars on food stamps last year, that's 50% over budget” or whatever amount it would be over budget IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD A BUDGET!
Next, when the GOP took the House in the 2010 elections Senator Harry Reid began his obstruction of the operation of our government, using his Political seat for his Progressive Democratic agenda and going against American Objective Representative government, causing the United States government to operate almost identically to a Politburo Soviet-style Party government structure, with Harry Reid as Chairman.
This is most notable when you look at what the House passed just for that 2011 year, and how anything that was not available for a political use by Harry Reid and the Democratic Party’s pursuit of their political agenda was not brought to the Senate Floor. Read examples of the actual record of this taking place that has been ignored by everyone, it seems… http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.189 followed by http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.190. One man, one Senator, the “Majority Leader,” has kept bills passed by the House from reaching the Senate Floor, let alone any opportunity for them to reach the President's desk. And it appears this is all done so that President Obama will never be held accountable for his signature or veto, Harry Reid using the Senate as a political bulwark for almost 5 years now to assure President Obama is subject to as little significant and newsworthy political scrutiny as possible, if any.
If a Democrat Congressional Super Majority of 2009-2010 that didn't even read the bill they passed on party lines, going so far as to call the Affordable Care Act a spending bill in order to make it subject to the rules of “Reconciliation,” then has their Majority Leader bring that bill to the Senate floor (with VP and President of the Senate Joe Biden at the ready to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian if the procedure is questioned) their idea of open government is a fraud and a sham, and their Obamacare “law” a fraud that had no business before the U.S. Supreme Court, for the Constitution and procedures of government in support thereof render such a “law” null and void.
This is the truth of Obamacare, this is the reason Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are heroes in enforcing our Constitution. What the Democrats are upset about is that the American People are questioning the Progressive agenda and those who support it as the actual outcomes of their actions are hurting people in their real, not academia imagined, lives. In fact, people are actually questioning the DNC's illustrious Barack Hussein Obama's actions and convenient plausible deniability. The aforementioned military actions signed-off by President Obama affirm this fact. The need for the DNC to pounce on Speaker Boehner's appearance with George Stephanopoulos trying to foment hate and insisting the Tea Party, who isn't even a political party but has supported, at best, 15% of the total Representatives in Congress, are responsible for a shutdown that is entirely due to one man in the Senate, Harry Reid, in his intent to protect one man in the White House, Barack Obama for the last almost 5 years!
The U.S. House has passed bills to fund the entire government but Obamacare, and it is their Constitutional right and role, that apparently “Constitutional Scholar” Barack Obama wasn't aware of or maybe he prefers to ignore:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” -- Constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.
Which, has a prior certainty of the power vested in the House to make sure the Senate and the President know who holds the power of the purse:
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” -- Constitution Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. Ibid.
Never amended, never changed, never was the U.S. Senate given the right to originate taxes (government “Revenue”) as it did in HR 3590, the Affordable Care Act via Max Baucus and his committee. Never was the President given power to determine the taxes nor national debt of the United States. No, not at any time has the Constitution been amended to strike the sole and exclusive right of The Peoples House as the originator (as an invention is “originated") in the idea of being taxed or spending the money in the U.S. Treasury. This is why the Constitution itself is the express Will of the People, retaining powers to the People that those in government ignore at their political peril, or at least, that should be the outcome.
The Obstructionist Extraordinaire in Washington, D.C. is U.S. Senator Harry Reid, who cannot objectively represent the American People and only sees Party and Political purpose as the reasons to allow the bills passed by the People's House to see the light of the Senate Floor. It is time to remove the longest standing obstacle to objective, reasonable, Honorable, and responsible American government, Harry Reid of Nevada, as Majority Leader while assuring Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is defeated by a primary challenge so we're not stuck with another moderate GOP/Progressive shill.
Thank you for reading and please share this,
Bob Beckel, of a FoxNews show called The Five (of October 3rd, 2013), cited polls of 78% of the people of America “who hate Obamacare are opposed to a government shut down.” He, of course, explained that many, many Democrats are in that mix, along with Independents, and Republicans. I care not where the poll is from nor would I think the accuracy invalid to the point of anything near 28 points (i.e. 78 – 28 = 50%).
Additionally, the GOP, those Republicans of the so called “Conservative Party” are meeting together and ganging up on Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee with “what's the end game,” that, “you've made your point about Obamacare, but now what,” and explaining that “we didn't get an answer.”
Here's the answer: Enforcement of the Constitution.
When a law violates the very letter of the Constitution, and the government is unable to carry out its checks and balances, it takes a few good people to stand tall, to stand firm in their convictions to help the government see the error of its ways. Person after person is upset about what is happening in this country, generally for their own personal reasons. But they continue to not understand the relationship of their woes to having a government who acts with impunity to violate the Constitution, how the money in the Treasury belongs to us even after government collects it.
This takes us to the need for people in government who uphold Honor, who appreciate their fiduciary responsibility, both to the money in our Treasury, and the privilege of being trusted to represent every American in their role as a representative, no matter what office they hold.
So I say to you who don't want a government shutdown, even a partial one like we have and think it is too much when compared to letting Obamacare go through, that when laws violate the Constitution, and many have, and we let them go through, those of an unscrupulous character, who didn't keep their campaign promises, who do not answer to the People when asked to do so by our Representatives in Congress, will pass laws of even greater and greater abuse of the limits imposed on government by the Constitution. Obamacare represents more than a mere trespass but an actual leap over every Constitutional safeguard, done for partisanship and as a matter of Party agendas and not with a scintilla of consideration for all Americans, which is obvious by the vote on the Affordable Care Act and the continued efforts to bring it to an end.
Please, I humbly ask you to review how this law was passed, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.121, why those who voted for Obamacare did so, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.155, and ask yourself what is the difference between a Congressman voting for a bill they didn't read and a bank rubber stamping bank loans (Why should you or any other American be held accountable under a law our representatives didn't even read?), http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.210, and then ask yourself if this is Democracy, let alone the Republic that We The People brought into existence by ratifying the Constitution.
My hope is that after you make this review you'll understand that only by brave people such as Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee is our Government brought to question its actions, its motives and purposes; and the Parties brought to recognize their gamesmanship isn't a form of government, that “an end game” is not what they were elected for nor is their party banter. Merely asking this question of these two people who stood up to be counted when the rest of those of their same party are going along to get along is an insult to the American People, and a mockery of our system for their own self-interest. Applause, great big, loud and overbearing applause should be heard throughout this nation for these two men and any that would stand with them to assure Our Constitution is brought to act as the bulwark, as the gatekeeper it is intended to be in stopping government from encroaching on Freedom and ending America's long-standing purpose and intention to have a government operating with absolute and unwavering respect for Individual Liberty.
Thank you for reading,
[My apologies for not having this up earlier as intended. Blog Talk Radio show reading of this article with some discussion, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/toddy-littman/2013/06/22/nsa-an-equal-opportunity-oppressor.]
This is the story from Washington isn't it? The massive collection of records to carry out 300 queries of the database, some 18,000 by request to the FISA “court” (yeah, I am not buying they don't happen otherwise, for I do not see any foolproof and untamperable automated system sending a record to the FISA court when an employee does a query of the database), 11 of which were denied, mostly under the Bush years. I mean, it was Democrat Jimmy Carter, after all, who gave us FISA in 1978, and since they hadn't turned down a warrant before George Bush's DOJ requests… well, some things are just obvious.
Whatever you do, do not consider how the NSA program under the Patriot Act is not the UKUSA program that's been using Signal Intelligence and intelligence sharing agreements to spy on Americans sine the 1940s, http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml, creating the modern day NSA in the last disclosure in 1956, http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ukusa/new_ukusa_agree_10may55.pdf, and that the literalness used by government to alter the affect of their actions by conscious knowledge and willingness to report themselves as querying the database using UKUSA, and therefore not governed by FISA, is a real, a genuine manner by which government employees perform their job so they can remain employed. Even the least reasonable person will arrive at the notion that the access can be a single terminal, but the log-ins to it can be multiple, and under differing programs, merged, or otherwise used together, by the terminal's operator, a Snowden, when in the best interest of government. We are already kind of doing that with NSA right now in relation to domestic uses of these databases… Yes, including those of foreign governments spying on us for our government who is spying on another country, in a circle of nations spying, on the idea that 1) it limits their liability to their own citizens and 2) this means assured integrity of the data or we all spy as enemies (better explained here http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.249.2.) And yes, for those who follow my writings, those first 2 links are a repeat, because this issue is too important to not take the time for reiteration (read on).
Imagine a prosecution going on, say Jodi Arias, just for an example. Sure she's guilty, but many people are guilty, Freedom does naturally assure that some people get away with some crimes, sometimes even murder. To catch every single murderer, every single criminal, is to do away with Freedom for everyone at some level, however, we're not getting into a worthless Obama "balanced approach" discussion hahaha.
I'd figure everyone noticed the "passion" the Prosecutor, Juan Martinez, displayed in the Jodi Arias case. Which, for me, seemed odd when you look at the beginnings of this case, that Arias was willing to plead guilty to 2nd degree murder and this Prosecutor declined to accept that deal to instead pursue a trial to prosecute her. That he, for some reason, felt it most important to get the 1st degree murder conviction. This is peculiar for Law Enforcement to take the "gamble" instead of the "sure thing" unless, of course, Juan Martinez knew it wasn't a gamble, that pursuing 1st degree murder is a sure thing worth the additional financial and media frenzied expense the 2nd degree murder plea would not have cost. Also notable is that the death penalty is the reason the 1st degree murder conviction was pursued.
Maybe it was worth it, maybe it wasn't, that's neither here nor there, but what if Juan Martinez's certainty, his passion and conviction in prosecuting this case, the information he presented at trial, was based on information “secretly” shared to him by an insider at the NSA, from Juan Martinez having a Snowden to query the database without FISA, and without any records of this query even if they are made as the information in the database can be erased and/or modified by those managing it as well. Of course, then again, it may have been the result of a legitimate query, that somehow Jodi Arias had made some communication overseas or in some other way that triggered an NSA query of her records in the database, and the NSA just shared the information with Juan Martinez in order to have a prosecution that would take care of her as a spy but without revealing their program nor revealing her role that might panic Americans. Of course, no one would know if any of this is true or not because the FISA “court” (Where no defendant is present and they are not apprised of their being surveilled, even if an American Citizen. And they say we get due process through FISA issuing a warrant... Ahem!), its records, its testimony, the “hearing” is all behind a vault door and conducted in secret.
These scenarios would have resulted, at one time, in me being called a paranoid, crazy, delusional, wacko for merely suggesting them, but now that the fact of NSA surveillance is out here – and these sigint and intelligence sharing agreement programs have been revealed and aren't part of the Patriot Act but are still used by NSA, where one of these agreements even explains NSA’s formation and designation of their responsibilities, not by acts of Congress but by these agreements alone – and while we do not know how to use the knowledge of the program's existence or what to do about any of this, and that's if the whole thing isn't just completely mind-numbing by just the overwhelming undermining of what we've believed, today I am not considered a paranoid, crazy, delusional, or even wacko. A right-wing wacko sure, but my sanity has been vindicated by the reality that, what was once deemed impossible and insanity to suggest, is actually taking place.
So the truth of what I am describing, using the Jodi Arias trial, is that the scenario is possible, and that this scenario can be true for anyone when government is storing and “controlling” records on everyone. At first blush, the Arias example might seem like a reasonable use, a brilliant way to do away with a spy, let alone a murderer, while not giving up anything regarding our nation's intelligence and security. The trouble is, that the system has been, and can be, wrong, innocently inaccurate, or worse, abused and corrupted, firstly by "the wrong people in charge," per se. But since the entire “apparatus,” the “scheme” is clandestine, since it is protected as a National Secret, since those involved don't want the link of the Patriot Act’s remedies at law to be used in any relation to sigint or intelligence agreements, what is the chance, the likelihood, of abuse and of the abuse becoming the standard, becoming the policy and procedure, to where, secondly the “right people” are in charge but the previous policy remains in place and is viewed as an objective standard of “law and intelligence” that, by actual use, is an equal opportunity of government oppression over all?
This is the trouble with the government just having this information, irrespective of the views of the United States Supreme Court, for the information is a "snapshot" of communications and decisions one has made in their lives, their past actions and thoughts, even emotions and how they express them, all that “can and will be used against you,” if by no other means than "profiling you," to fit people to a crime instead of prove they actually perpetrated the crime. A horrible thought but the heart of the very trouble with this whole scenario.
Thus, when I did a cursory review of the Patriot Act and found the sections for civil and criminal remedy (see http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.249.2) it was immediately obvious to me that people need to know about them, and have some suggestions of what they could do with the Patriot Act to protect themselves. There is too much of a drum beat to get away from a law, the only law that I know of, that we could use to expose not just what NSA has on someone, but how they got it, whether by sigint or through intelligence sharing, and then be able to bring an end to the whole idea that this domestic spying and database storing of information is a good thing instead of as the genuine threat to national security it is by threatening the very Freedom we hold dear; affecting our considerations of what to do and when by our own 2nd guessing of "what will the NSA think if I say that?" or "What will the government think if I do this?" and handing the immoral secular government the chance to be the moral contrast to our thoughts and actions, a coerced (by duress) undermining of the American way and Spirit.
Using Arias again, what if the phone records used were intercepts by China under intelligence sharing? Would you want to be deemed an enemy of the State subject to this kind of trial and prosecution because of records we got from China about you? Would anyone? And is it a check or balance if both governments decide to name innocents -- those droned civilians the left is always propping up in feigned worry about -- and falsify records to have people imprisoned and killed in order to test the trust between their governments so these governments can play the "I duped you" urinating contest of machismo with each other ad infinitum, while we are less than pawns on a chess board to be discarded? All because of a cold institutional view of data that we transfer to an assumption of objective use by those managing the data? Are we truly going to sit back and let the government literally treat us as "just a number?"
Suddenly these things aren't delusions, as they once were when technology wasn't able to achieve what has since happened with the digital age, and everyone's foolish embrace of it as though there are no strings attached. Thus we're all thrust into the midst of the reality prophesied by those we thought to be paranoid -- our summary ostracizing of them our waiver of discussion and solutions -- only now that the prophecy has occurred and been proven true by government's admission do we belatedly ask if this is the reality we want in the future, the one the paranoid mind envisioned and that we now cannot discount with confidence in knowing it's just not possible. Note how government "force" comes in a variety of packages.
This is the proper danger of the answers to questions leading to the next set of questions, that, of course needs to take place. Information technology has quietly evolved in a vacuum created by the commercial possibilities of it, treating it as the unleashing of human potential, irrespective of the myriad misrepresentations made by "science" over other things such as global warming. So, it would seem the time has come for the technology to be taken to task as to its affect on reality, that maybe it is time we established limits to technology's areas of application and objects of its study and use as we did with government. Because the influence of information and how it is managed, presented, and re-presented, the ease with which we assume trust and the assumption of trust in regard to information, and how this is exploited by government using technology for oppressive ends, is just too great.
I can't emphasize enough the import of understanding what it means for government to be Agent “Ralph Edwards” of the NSA, with “This Is Your Life” on a thumb drive.
Thank you for reading,
[Okay, this is long because it has "notation" as this is the read version of what I was going to post as a written blog without the notations. I found I had to make notations in this one because the issue isn't as simple. Here is where I read this out, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/toddy-littman/2013/06/15/patriot-act-nsas-biggest-nightmare. I'll suggest listening to the show while reading the following, as some of the notations didn't make the show and some of what is discussed on the show didn't make it into the notations, thinking aloud. As "scribbled type" notations, the grammar is probably lacking, I ask you pardon those instances, thank you.]
A few times people asked and a few times I offered up what I'm about to go over, eventually it was said, by my good friend @GregWHoward “that this needs more than 140 characters a line,” so here goes...
Unbeknownst to anyone, for the most part, but the intelligence community and member governments, there were a series of what appear to be Executive (Presidential) Agreements done. The NSA title and first paragraphs of their disclosure page are instructive...
“UKUSA Agreement Release
“The tradition of intelligence sharing between NSA and its Second party partners has deep and widespread roots that have been cultivated for almost three quarters of a century. During World War II, the U.S. Army and Navy each developed independent foreign SIGINT [i] relationships with the British and the Dominions of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These relations evolved and continued across the decades. The bonds, forged in the heat of a world war and tempered by decades of trust and teamwork, remain essential to future intelligence successes.
“The March 5, 1946, signing of the BRUSA (now known as UKUSA) Agreement marked the reaffirmation of the vital WWII cooperation between the United Kingdom and United States. Over the next 10 years, appendices to the Agreement, some of which are included with this release to the public, were drafted and revised. These appendices and their annexures provide details of the working relationship between the two partners and also address arrangements with the other Second Parties (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand).” -- Emphases mine, http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml
[NOTATION: Put link in chatroom.]
Can I tell you all about this agreement? Obviously not, for even though this all took place some 70 years ago, and was not concluded, apparently portions of it remain secret, kept from the public.
Just for the simplicity of it, anyone can sift through this incomplete group of documents that are part of a public disclosure, via the web obviously, and, as I want to avoid being a “nerd in the weeds,” I ask you to go to what is the last link at the time of writing this blog/article, “New UKUSA Agreement – 10 May 1955” and look at the references to NSA on page 2, note the setting up of NSA, its Director, and their responsibilities are mentioned for discussion there.
I ran across this in looking up information for a couple of other ChangingWind.Org articles, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.142 and http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.143. These articles were more in regard to the politics of having the Tea Party come into Congress and being upset in their not doing something significant in regard to these longstanding clandestine surveillance programs that go against the Limited Government Principles of the Tea Party.
Echelon never was held accountable for its suggestion that “virtually [as in virtual drives perhaps?] 97% of all communications worldwide [in the late 1990s] was monitored, recorded, and held,” government just having an ever-available grip on the hindsight of all communications and those who made them. Duncan Campbell of the Statesman tried to shed a bright light on this, http://www.duncancampbell.org/content/echelon. However, as per usual with the leftwing INTERNATIONAL media, he was silenced by their editorialism, their being “reasonable” in thinking that this is way too much for people to handle, that it will upset people worldwide to know this is going on, and how it works; and also being unreasonable, that the idea of a handful, say 1000 editors whose approval is required and believe in a collectivist order at any cost, would go with other stories – And you thought the Monica Lewinsky “she saved the dress” scandal was just a personal matter, never knowing it was a story spun out of control in media and government frenzy to avoid something much bigger than a Presidency. We almost seem to be in a similar place in media, frenzy, and “crisis not to go to waste” history, a sort of “déjà vu,” only now, the admission is greater, and, the fact is each event, Clinton’s Echelon-to-Lewinsky, and now, Obama's Benghazi-to-NSA, are steps of acceptance by the American public of increments of Socialism, and of global government if we do not call for a halt of the surveillance, which, amazingly would be done by us through the Patriot Act, not by politics.
However, a little tying pieces together in is in order regarding the “sigint” agreements.
Let's say America spies on Britain, Britain spies on Canada, Canada spies on China, and China spies on America, and then each of these governments share the information they surveilled with the country they spied on. Legally, do you or any one of us have standing to bring a lawsuit against the government of a foreign country for spying on us when we did not know? Do any of the people in these other countries have legal standing? Obviously, no, none of us do – And, it is this limited liability to governments while gaining trustworthy intelligence that gave “sigint” such an appeal. Some might think, “well we have legal standing now because we know about it.” Simply put: We, any single one of us, are not a party to the agreements between these governments. I'll cite a little article about a case brought to challenge the 2008 FISA Court (what the Patriot Act affected, essentially):
“The 9th Circuit noted that this case was similar to another suit before the U.S. Supreme Court, Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l, where government surveillance programs under the 2008 incarnation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) were challenged for Fourth Amendment reasons.
“Like the plaintiffs in Clapper, the 9th Circuit demanded proof that the government had surveilled them. Since CCR [center] did not provide that proof, the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case.” -- Emphasis mine, this article find care of https://twitter.com/sue51684, article link, http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2013/06/nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-lawsuits-dismissal-affirmed.html.
Does anyone else see the trouble with the criteria of “prove that government surveilled you” for a clandestine Executive Agreement program made between governments that requires the highest government clearances in each of them to even know about? -- And people wonder why the anti-federalists thinking the original 13 colonies breaking into 3 or for separate nations was a bad idea!
Now, if this is enough, put this article away with a sticky note for later, but know I am planning not to go too much further, so I'd ask you to indulge me.
I laid this out to you to understand that government surveillance of the American People isn't a new thing, knowing about it is, and that maturity, objectivity, and a sober mind are paramount necessities to assure we do not essentially hand government eventual SCOTUS case precedents to be used to further the masquerade of all of this.
I'll just cite 2 pieces of the original Patriot Act itself so you can understand why this is the agenda of the Obama Administration’s 2nd term, to get rid of the Patriot Act, by Executive fiat (Executive Order) and, if possible, by repeal. The public sentiment hasn't reached an apex that makes maneuvering them significant enough for the House to be overwhelmingly taken by Progressives if the current “GOP controlled” House will not repeal the Patriot Act (and if none of this happens, great, I wanna be wrong! hahaha).
“`Sec. 2712. Civil actions against the United States
“ `(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who is aggrieved by any willful violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of sections 106(a), 305(a), or 405(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) may commence an action in United States District Court against the United States to recover money damages. In any such action, if a person who is aggrieved successfully establishes such a violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of the above specific provisions of title 50, the Court may assess as damages--
“ `(1) actual damages, but not less than $10,000, whichever amount is greater; and
“ `(2) litigation costs, reasonably incurred.
“ `(b) PROCEDURES- (1) Any action against the United States under this section may be commenced only after a claim is presented to the appropriate department or agency under the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as set forth in title 28, United States Code.
“ `(2) Any action against the United States under this section shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within 2 years after such claim accrues or unless action is begun within 6 months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail, of notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented. The claim shall accrue on the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.” -- Emphasis mine, there's more here, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR: just click the link for section 2712.
[NOTATION: i.e. SF 95 & procedure, http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/SF95.pdf]
[NOTATION: Explain how “reasonable opportunity to discover the violation” means that the clock starts from the time the person bringing the lawsuit had actual knowledge of their right to make a claim, that offense done 10 years ago, is not barred if you didn't know until today you had a right to make a claim, that this is when the clock for the 2 years or 6 months starts. You can't be held accountable for what you didn't know, and when asked to prove when you knew, you need to show when without it being able to be considered “unreasonable” though they'll argue that, tell the truth of not knowing and when you did know, and the course of events itself will engender reasonableness.]
[NOTATION: Explain that the Civil Case is a great opportunity for discovery, and that by using it narrow and yet accurately you want to submit those things that will lead to ease in filing a complaint to get a prosecution started, pursuant to the next section, for, as records in a courtroom, whether judgment in your favor or not, they are public records that, if taken in by the court as evidence, are generally irrefutable as submittable as evidence in another case. If you won, it will be easier to get them submitted in a subsequent case brought under the following section.]
“SEC. 329. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
“ Any person who is an official or employee of any department, agency, bureau, office, commission, or other entity of the Federal Government, and any other person who is acting for or on behalf of any such entity, who, directly or indirectly, in connection with the administration of this title, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for--
“ (1) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
[NOTATION: This could just include a raise or elevation in stature/position]
“ (2) being influenced to commit or aid in the committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
[NOTATION”: If someone says there was information gathered about you, but it is false, if you don't know about the information the agency will never know the information isn't true, right?]
“ (3) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person,
[NOTATION: which obviously would be more than merely influence, more covert/overt, threatening etc.]
“ shall be fined in an amount not more than 3 times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both. A violation of this section shall be subject to chapter 227 of title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.” --
Full text of the original Patriot Act as passed same as above, (I strongly suggest using a Mark Levine group, ACLJ or other lawyer, and feel free to share this article with them as well, the depth of what is going on is unfathomable), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR: Just click the link to Section 329. Thomas treats all of these links from the main Patriot Act text as “temporary” searches that expire within 30 minutes or I'd just post a link to the sections directly.
As you can see, there is a means of remedy, both civil and criminal, however, the roadblock of grounds to sue becomes the issue if you follow these paths directly. So, and this is my concluding portion of this article, I suggest your lawyers look closely at the above provisions of the Patriot Act, recognizing the discovery opportunities to establish standing on the basis of the law's self-executing provisions regarding civil/criminal liability, depending on who you are and who your lawyers are, how they practice law, and the type of remedy pursued. The legal specifics must of course be included in the SF-95 (http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/SF95.pdf), and, as you can see in the order of things, the notice and opportunity to the agency to give you a hearing, and deny your claim is required by the law as well. The key to this for us is that it is in the course of this administrative claim process that the waiver of the agency's presumption of sovereign immunity occurs when you get no remedy.
Method, order, and keeping your wits about you, for you and your lawyers, is essential. But while others are screaming as though this is a conspiracy of banks (or lizard people), the reality is that even Prison Camps have been with us since the 1940s, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4125 (hit the “notes” tab after the link loads).
Of course, the necessity is to recognize that the only ones upset are those trying to deceive and mislead you, having a political or monetary agenda fed by their sensationalism, or that they truly are panicked, and likely would be best served by your use of seasoned reason and objectivity to help them become a client to your lawyer so we can have myriad individual cases that win, that set hundreds, if not thousands of Supreme Court precedents that end the entire idea of surveillance behind the NSA program.
I'd share more details but at 4 pages in my word processor, I am sure I've outworn my welcome to your eyes, and ears, should I read this on a BTR radio show.
Thank you for reading and/or listening, God Bless,