The Obama Administration has far surpassed even Bush’s post 9/11 levels of government scrutiny of citizens, business, whistle-blowers the media and the Fed’s own agencies. It seems to me that the Obama regime’s big brother policies have even surpassed that of communist China and Russia during the cold war. I hold that all the below mentioned reports (and more) are all in some respect related and a a part of the development of an increasingly, politically paranoid “Big Brother” mentality withing the Federal government.
DHS No Longer Needs Permission Slips to Monitor Other Agencies’ Networks for Vulnerabilities
The Department of Homeland Security has spelled out its intentions to proactively monitor civilian agency networks for signs of threats, after agencies arguably dropped the ball this spring in detecting federal websites potentially harboring the Heartbleed superbug.
Common sense recognizes that with hacking and attacks from foreign governments and other hackers, it is necessary to guard intrusions into government networks. (Sadly the government seems to continually fail to block such cyber attacks, which would indicate that there is a need for the development of a Cyber-defense project comparable with the Manhattan Project that can not only defend against cyber-attacks, but launch a retaliatory response) The need for protection of our government and civilian networks at is not at question here. The problem is that such monitoring of activity can be instead misused by a “Big Brother” administration into being used to search and find political opposition to it’s agenda. The Obama administration seems more concerned on going after political opposition than securing itself from foreign intrusions.
Appeals court to determine whether FBI’s national security letters violate free speech rights
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether gag orders that bar recipients from discussing the letters are free speech violations rendering the demands unconstitutional.
The FBI issues thousands of national security letters annually while investigating terrorism and espionage cases. Unlike warrants, the demands for information are made without judicial oversight. A lower court judge ruled the letters unconstitutional because of the gag orders but allowed the FBI to continue sending the letters, also known as NSLs, pending an appeal.
We can also look to our military, where some officers have been essentially given “loyalty tests” on whether they would follow an order by the President to fire on US civilians, and those who considered it wrong were subsequently forced out. This is of course a direct violation of the officer’s oath of office, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
Then again, if you militarize “law enforcement agents” with military grade weapons and weaponized vehicles and aircraft, courtesy of the Executive branch, does that not in of itself essentially do somewhat the same thing by transforming “law enforcement” into a civilian military force? And what about Obama’s recent aborted attempt to enlist illegal foreign nationals into our military. (Does anyone remember their Revolutionary War history and the “Hessian”?
We are indeed living in “interesting times.” It’s time to seriously consider the “why” of all such actions by this administration.
When he took office, he knew he would not be able to get his agenda through Congress. He decided since he could not govern through legislation, he would rule by regulation. No checks, no balances and no one to hold him accountable, he gave himself free reign to position himself as the ruler, and we the people allowed him this position. It will be real interesting to see what happens in the next two months, and the next two years. We may see some real turmoil unlike any we’ve ever seen in our country.
I can remember a good friend of mine griping about gun registration back in the early ’80’s and myself arguing, “what would it hurt?”. I also remember how little I worried about aspects of the Patriot Act, since the intent was for it to be directed at foreign communications and transaction.
The threat, of course, is not the intent but the abuse. Many of us who are not inherently distrustful of government don’t see the potential of someone so un-American reaching such a high position of responsibility so as to be able to abuse such tools. All that has changed.
Obama has weaponized the IRS. He has weaponized the EPA. He has weaponized HHS. He has weaponized ICE. He has weaponized the DOJ. Hopefully, this will be a vital lesson learned (once we wrest power from Obama’s grip; and I fear wresting just might be necessary) just as to how anti-American our government COULD be and steps taken to counteract it.
If Obama were to attempt a coup of any sort, I don’t believe (there I go being naive again) even most of his liberal party would go along with it. It might turn violent, but it would not be successful. That, too, may be a valuable lesson we all need to learn the hard way.
“I can remember a good friend of mine griping about gun registration back in the early ’80’s and myself arguing, “what would it hurt?”. I also remember how little I worried about aspects of the Patriot Act, since the intent was for it to be directed at foreign communications and transaction.
The threat, of course, is not the intent but the abuse. Many of us who are not inherently distrustful of government don’t see the potential of someone so un-American reaching such a high position of responsibility so as to be able to abuse such tools. All that has changed.”
I agree for the most part, although I never liked the thought of gun registration. Like you, I wasn’t too worried about the Patriot Act, and I really believe President Bush’s intentions were all good; I also think he never considered we would get a president in office that wasn’t raised with American values, American principles and American pride; and yet, look what we got, despite all the warning signs.
Buckle up buckaroo, we’re gonna be in some turbulence for a bit.
I read parts of the Boston Globe where Jeanne Shaheen was in cahoots with Lois Lerner and the IRS. You can’t have groups pushing smaller government, balanced budgets, and eventually lower taxes. Where was the media when Kay Hagen etal, was accused and guilty of insider graft for renewable energy grants and sweetheart loans? This was kept for the last weekend where the stink was very limited. Both these miscreants should have lost and should be punished. Toooooo much government!
I’m afraid we haven’t seen anything yet. We have a long two years to 2016, and Hussein the Insane has nothing to lose.
IMHO most of our alphabet agencies ( FBI EPA NSA TSA etc.) are becoming STASI like, and their uniformed branches a Volkspolizei (peoples police).
Let’s not forget about obama telling us he wants a civilian security force that is as strong as, and equally funded as the military. THIS WAS BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
Before obama was elected, the only federal SWAT teams were in the FBI, now, at least 70 agencies, departments, etc., have some kind of armed response team that they never had before obama.
The writers of the United States Constitution were more fearful of their politicians than anything else, and there weren’t any politicians yet.
Smorg Did you ever hang out with Yogi Berra?
@rich wheeler: #10
First: I don’t follow sports much. An example is one time when a man wanted to talk sports with me, and I told him I’m not much of a sports enthusiast. I gave him an example when I told him I knew a certain person was a baseball player, but I don’t know what team his is on. He told me the guy plays hockey. He didn’t talk to me after that.
Second: I don’t understand why you asked the question, unless it was meant for someone else.
The founders were well aware of the corrupting influences of politics, hence Franklin’s statement after Constitutional Congress agreed to create the nation as “A republic, if you can keep it.” From their writings they made it quite clear that they were dead against creating the nation as a democracy, because democracies quickly atrophy into social-fascism, oligarchical enslavement or that the nation’s economy would financially collapse when some of the people learn they can vote their way into entitlements (money) taken forcibly by the government from others. The founders were hopeful that once the people experienced the freedoms of a constitutional republic with a limited government, that they would fight to keep their freedoms.
Unfortunately, the Democratic party came along ushered in by American elites who were seduced by the promise of Fabian Society Utopia. People of the privileged class whom by the time of Woodrow Wilson openly referred to themselves by the lofty (yet disingenuous) title of “progressives”. There is nothing “progressive” about oligarchical feudalism.
George Washington was asked to be the king, but he refused, because he didn’t want their new country to be like the one they came from.
Somebody said that if half the people can vote themselves more money, they will do just that. We aren’t far from that figure. This is the main reason the democrats started a drive to get as many people on welfare as they could. The republicans found out it was working, so they became welfare givers too. When the size of government is also increased, that means that many more votes for whoever will guarantee them their jobs, and who will keep giving them more money. The federal government is no longer for WE THE PEOPLE, but we the receivers.
Hopefully the republicans will realize that there are still enough of WE THE PEOPLE to vote them out of office, and start doing what WE THE PEOPLE want them to do.
After the next presidential election, I think it will be time to help establish, or help establish an already existing political party that puts in their platform the things the Tea Party wants passed. One law I would like to see passed is that any bill introduced into congress will also reference the part of the Constitution or federal law that allows such a bill. I would also like to see that law applied to the supreme court.
He was making fun of you, Smorg, because he doesn’t have any other ammunition.
I knew the comment was meant in some kind of derogatory way, but since I don’t know much about Yogi Berra, I didn’t understand what he meant. I’m guessing that he played for the Yankees, but I don’t know. He must not think much of Yogi, to compare him to me.
For all of you out there without a sense of humor:
Yogi Berra was famous for his pithy sayings:
“That place is so popular, no one goes there anymore.”
“If you come to a fork in the road, take it.”
“Always go to other people’s funerals, or they won’t come to yours.”
“It’s like deja vu, all over again.”
“I never said most of the things I said.”
“You wouldn’t have won if we had beaten you.”
There are endless additional examples.
It was a joke, Smorg!
@Smorgasbord: I loved Yogi–As a kid, I caught a foul ball he hit at Yankee Stadium–got it signed by The Mick, Moose, Billy, Phil, Whitey, Hank–the team. Kept it in a plastic container for about a year. Then started playing with it. Oh well.
Did you get back in the stock market?
Mathman Good stuff—-Thanks
A joke is only funny if a person understands the circumstances around it. I love jokes, even if I am the butt of the joke, as long as it isn’t derogatory. I’m guessing it wasn’t meant in a derogatory way. I will take it as a compliment, since I LOVE stuff like that.
@mathman: What some people forget, or don’t know, is that before Yogi, there was his manager, Casey–and Stengelese
“All right everyone, line up alphabetically, according to your height.”
“Never make predictions, especially about the future.”
“There are three things you can do in a baseball game. You can win, you can lose, it can rain.”
@Richard Wheeler: #17
Sorry to hear about the ball from Yogi you caught. Sounds like something I would have done when I was young.
I myself have never been in the stock market. I leave it up to my financial planner. For now, I had him sell everything and leave it in cash. I’m glad I did.
@Smorgasbord: Are you saying you have never personally been in the stock market–only you’re money has–via your F.P.?
The only time I told my FP to buy a company’s stock was to buy a good amount of Apple stock. At that time it was around $379. Not long after, it went to $700. I was going to tell my FP to sell it, but me being the procrastinator that I am, by the time I told him to sell it, it was down to about $450-500. I still made a good profit on it, but could have made more if I had acted sooner.
Before obama was elected the first time, my account was averaging about 16% return. After obama got elected I don’t need to say any more.
Everybody is good at some things, and lousy at others. We should never do things we are lousy at, and I’m lousy at managing MY money. My FP does only one thing: Manage people’s money. He gets paid 1.5% of what the account is worth each year, not by the trade, or any other way.
@Smorgasbord: “After Obama got elected I don’t need to say anymore.” I’m assuming your FP did extremely well as the market has gone up well over 100% since Obama’s election in Nov. 2008.
Are you saying if your portfolio goes from 200.000 to 100,000 next year this guy will still get $1500. As a former stockbroker, I’d say that’s a good gig.
You keep saying how far the stock market went up since obama got elected. Are you starting from the day obama was elected? The market went down between 25-30% RIGHT AFTER HE WAS ELECTED. Mine went down about 25%. So, if a person had $100,000 invested, that would mean that they then would have only $75,000 invested. They would have to get $25,000 back before they would be at the zero mark where you say the stock market has risen 100%.
Keep in mind that BEFORE obama was elected, I was getting about a 16% return from the investments my FP made for me. It is hard to complain about those numbers. I was up to where I was getting about a 6% return before I decided on putting it in cash until the market decides what it is going to do.
Right now, I am intending on putting the money in a USAA mutual fund account. I keep hearing how retired people prefer the mutual funds, and with USAA it is free. They don’t charge anything. Any thoughts on this? I am asking VERY seriously.
@Smorgasbord: Free is always good. Your fund by it’s nature will be diversified. One suggestion is that it buys stocks with reasonable dividend yield 3-6% and stocks with consistent annually improving earnings over the past 5+ years. Make sure it is actually free and buys type of stocks I mentioned—Keep 25% in cash and balance this every year.
Any questions I’ll do my best to answer.
Believe RT a pretty savvy investor.
Thanks for the info.