22 comments:

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:58 am on Tue, Jul 10, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Mr Liebich stated...Eventually there comes a point at which tyranny becomes so blatant that the skeptics have to acknowledge its existence, but after doing so, they choose to rationalize it as necessary...

  ...and then there are some like me who are willing to leave USA in order to be free.

  ...and there are others that simply resign themselves to being under the government's thumb as it is perceived no other options available...

  ...and then there are people like Ms Bobin who enjoy being under the government's thumb and experience joy at others who suffer the results.

  • Link

   

• Andrew Liebich posted at 9:22 am on Sun, Jul 8, 2012.

  Posts: 2040

  In the initial stages of nearly every recorded tyranny, the willfully ignorant dumbstruck masses exhibit astonishing and masterful skill when denying reality. Eventually there comes a point at which tyranny becomes so blatant that the skeptics have to acknowledge its existence, but after doing so, they choose to rationalize it as necessary. [sleeping]

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:29 am on Sat, Jul 7, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Mike stated...I'm guessing you don't, but I don't mind having 16,000 more IRS agents tracking down deadbeats and tax cheats who cost us all more money

  Mike, I do not mind having more IRS agents. That is not related to my point. This is Obamacare.. a bill that is supposed to bring better health care and save us money. The IRS agents if needed like you say, could have been approved years ago. Why the link between health care and the IRS? Why would we need 16000 more agents just to monitor health care tax. I would think 30-40 IRS agents dedicated to monitor only health care tax would be appropriate. but 16000? In my view, something does not add up.

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:21 am on Sat, Jul 7, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Continued…

  Two of the most problematic surveillance powers the Patriot Act grants law enforcement are 1) National Security Letters (NSLs) and 2) Section 215 orders. As a Senator, Obama supported reforming both sets of powers “to protect the freedoms of innocent Americans while also ensuring that the government has the power it needs to investigate potential terrorists.” Senator Obama supported these protections through the SAFE Act, which he co-sponsored in the 109th Congress, and also in a signed 2005 letter to his Senate colleagues.

  So what happened? Why did President Obama about-face on the very civil liberties protections he supported a few short years ago as a Senator? Has the President now determined that the contraction of American civil liberties is outweighed by the political risk of something happening on his watch? With Democrats in charge of Congress and strong civil libertarians at the helm of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the time for Patriot Act reform is now. But with the Administration pushing in the wrong direction, the chances for reform have been diminished. Now it's up to the House Judiciary Committee to stand its ground. The opportunity for real reform will not come again anytime soon. Congress needs to do the right thing, even if Obama will not.

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:20 am on Sat, Jul 7, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Ms bobin barked...I mean stated......Could you provide ACTUAL documents and page numbers? And by-the-way, spare us YOUR interpretation of the Patriot Act.

  Happy to leave my opinion out of this issue Ms bobin... Obama, as Mr Liebich posted, has enthusiastically supported the Patriot act. Another example of the liberal left's hypocrisy. This is the opinion of an article from the liberal Huffington Post.

  OBAMA VS OBAMA ON THE PATRIOT ACT
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-harris/obama-versus-obama-on-the_b_315638.html

  Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to reauthorize three expiring provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. While the bill they passed strengthened civil liberties in several small ways, the Committee failed to make any meaningful improvements to the Patriot provisions that are most prone to abuse. Disturbingly, Obama Administration officials played a significant behind the scene role in opposing stronger civil liberties protections, directly contradicting Obama’s positions as a Senator.
  

  • Link

   

• Mike Adams posted at 7:29 am on Sat, Jul 7, 2012.

  Posts: 1028

  Ms. Bobin, Mr. Jacobs: Thanks for the assistance. Been busy, haven't got the time the weasel (that's Liebich incase you didn't know Mr. Jacobs) has to spend on his computer stealing everyone else's prose and trying to pass it off as something he wrote (which is about ~100% of all his posts...really. I think he is only moderately literate so someone is probably helping him).

  Perhaps the weasel would benefit from a visit from Homeland Security? Wondering why he is such a seditious asset to the angry far right. Why he wants to overthrow the government. He doesn't like here in America. Maybe he should get the out and live some where else. Wanna bet his first call would be to ACLU?

  I also have a theory that all the bangs and booms Wednesday night weren't just fireworks, probably all right wing nut jobs finally realizing that ObamaCare ("Care' because he does") was going to be the law of the land and they were using our Independence Day as cover for preparation of their big move to take over the government. Fortunately, I think their IQ is equal to the number of teeth they still have left so they are bound to fail. At that too.

  • Link

   

• Andrew Liebich posted at 2:37 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.

  Posts: 2040

  Section 215 was certainly not "fazed out through sunset provisions"... [ohmy]

  The Patriot Act allows the government to search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist “terror” (drug and other victimless crime) investigations. It prevents a right to a speedy and public trial (ask American Jose Padilla about this one). It discourages freedom of association, freedom of speech (the government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation), and the right to legal representation (the government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes).
  
  The act allows the government to abduct citizens and jail them without charge or the ability to confront witnesses against them. It allows the government to hold anybody deemed an “unlawful combatant” incommunicado forever. It effectively turns America into East Germany or Stalin’s Russia.
  
  

  • Link

   

• Joanne Bobin posted at 11:50 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.

  Posts: 3215

  Mr. Baumbach wrote: "Patriot Act that was strengthened and made more invasive,"

  Since most of the USAPATRIOT Act was fazed out through sunset provisions, and Obama only reauthorized essential counter-terrorism provisions, I'm concerned where Mr. Baumbach got this information.

  Could you provide ACTUAL documents and page numbers? And by-the-way, spare us YOUR interpretation of the Patriot Act.

  Also, do not include anything that is actually not IN the Patriot Act.

  • Link

   

• Joanne Bobin posted at 11:35 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.

  Posts: 3215

  Mr. Kindseth wrote:

  Joanne: Todays reading assignment:

  http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ows_and_the_one_millionth_right

  When I want to swallow the ignorant rantings of the right-wing, Mr. Kindseth, I will take up a subscription to American Thinker.

  American Thinker is what ignorant, small-minded people read because it says what they want to hear and its level of intelligence is directed at those, like yourself, who have no ability to analyze on their own.
  

  • Link

   

• Mike Adams posted at 12:54 pm on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.

  Posts: 1028

  Darrell: Is there some website you conservatives refer to that keeps track of "broken promises"? I just wonder because most of the things you listed were planks of the last failed republican presidential candidate, John McCain.

  I remember the hue and cry... you can't close gitmo....all them terrorists will end up back in IRAQ (the country which sheltered bin Laden). And you can give a definite leave date....all them IRAQ Taliban and Al Queda will just wait till we leave!!! And I like this one the most....Obama's war in Afganistan!!! One more mess W left him that he had to clean up. I guess that's the way it is with rich boys...you can always leave the dirty work to someone else.

  I'm guessing you don't, but I don't mind having 16,000 more IRS agents tracking down deadbeats and tax cheats who cost us all more money. My sense is that many of the 16,000 are replacements for retirees in the system, but you'll include some article for the Heritage Foundation or like-minded "civic" group describing them as needed to keep the middle class in line. Why should you worry if you pay your taxes that you owe? What if they audit you? If your're paying what you owe, an audit shouldn't be a big deal.

  As one proud American who voted for Obama and plan to do so again, the "Hope and Change" has been changed to "Hook and Drag" by the republicans in congress, particularly within the last year. I know you realize there are only three ways republicans have of getting rid of Obama in 2012 and that is: 1) massive unemployment and the reduction of unemployment benefits for many in the middle class; 2) massive increases in the price of gasoline and home heating oil by the oil companies (leaky Keystone pipeline or not); 3) Romney gets a woman to run as his vice-president. I know, I know... McCain did this and it was a dismal failure, but that was because he picked an idiot who as near as anyone can tell, never read a newspaper or a magazine unless it was in the doctor's office...but Romney's going to get a better woman and this time it's really going to work!!!! I believe Meg Whitman and Carly what-ever-her-name-is are both free for the next 2-6 years.

  We probably should add a 4th:Romney - When the Supreme Court says they'll have a ruling on a specific date about a specific case..you might want to consider having statements prepared IN ADVANCE so even if they rule against all republicans you won't be left with putting out a lame-a## press release. Yeah....that's the type of leadership republicans have come to know and love.

  Republicans: Just keep running the same plays from the same old tired playbook and you'll get the same old tried and true results: a Democrat in the White House.
  As your memory is your strongest suit...don't even change the audibles.

  • Link

   

• Robert Jacobs posted at 12:37 pm on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.

  Posts: 297

  I must add the Supreme Court are to uphold the constitution of the United States. They are to interpret law not create it. Of course former President Bush change United States law on torture in order to torture by a White House lawyer!

  I won't do it justice (no pun intended) so I'll just post a web site that will...

  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/program/index1.html

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:06 am on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Obamatax? Not Obamacare?

  Thank you Mr Kinderman for more accurately describing this bill. Maybe it should be stated that Obama"not"care how much he increases taxes. The billions in increased taxes on the middle class is astounding considering his rhetoric during the last campaign.

  What was it he said? I will not increase your taxes one penny, I will close Gitmo, I will get rid of the Patriot Act as it is a danger to your freedom, I will walk with the unions ( Wisconsin )... So many promises broken.

  So what did we get? 16000 more IRS agents ( at a cost of over 5 billion per year) to squeeze every penny out of the tax payer, a Patriot Act that was strengthened and made more invasive, A health plan that increased taxes making it unaffordable to most Americans, unemployment got worse and more jobs going overseas...

  Hope and Change? In your dreams. Any change that might have happened was sucked out of our economy by increase tax and more regulations.

  November second ...2012...the solution!!!!

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:48 am on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Ms Bobin stated...Someone told me the other day that the cognitive ability of the average American is at the eighth grade level. I'm beginning to believe it from what I read in the LNS and this forum.

  Evidently, Ms Bobin is busy reading her own posts.

  • Link

   

• Mike Adams posted at 7:58 pm on Wed, Jul 4, 2012.

  Posts: 1028

  Mr. Kindseth: Interesting. I notice that when the court does not rule the "right" way when there is an issue I am concerned about, I generally chock it up as idealogy. When it does make the correct decision, I tend to think it's more about the law and how the law reflects what is in the Constitution.

  If they are legal scholars, then why don't they generally vote 9-0 or 8-1? Why does the Constitution lack a pulse or some other attribute that would make it living and subject to change as technology advances? The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and determine how laws made by Congress and occasionally the legislative branches of the 50 states, as well as the actions of the executive branch.

  I don't know....why did they rule that if all educational opportunities were offered, why did they vote to maintain the "separate but equal" tiers in education? Why did a later court over turn it? I don't see the Kansas "city" school board mentioned in the Constitution and hence why would they make a ruling or let a case come before them regarding segregation in schools?

  Why did the Supreme Court rule that Dred Scott was not a man? He isn't in the Constitution either.

  Maybe it's because in their wisdom, the founders of democracy realized that technology among other things would progress. They had or were able to make batteries by the time the Constitution was written, but could they have seen "sampling' on CD's? Why can't I write a book about the experience of a semi well to do family in the south during the civil war and call it "Gone with the Wind"?

  Why can't election officials in the southern states require everyone (but mostly African Americans) pay a toll or a tax everytime they vote?

  Who would decide who would become the next president if the president elect disappeared on December 20, a month prior to swearing in? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are quite adamant about the protocol regarding the swearing in of a newly elected president. The when and where and who. So let's say Romney accidentialy gets himself elected president. Comes 12-21-2012 and no one can find him. It's pretty clear in the amendments and the articles in the Constitution that the VP gets sworn in first, just in case the president elect doesn't take the oath. Complicate it further that there is no Speaker of the House or Senate President Pro temp for political reasons.

  See none of this or these scenarios are mentioned in the Constitution, yet they could conceiveably occur. Do you want the congress to decide? Even if they could, could they? Have another election? Can't do that either. Who will take the words written in the very late 1700's and apply them today? These are all governed by laws and laws have to be interpreted because no one envisions the odd situations that occur in real life.

  • Link

   

• John Kindseth posted at 6:05 pm on Wed, Jul 4, 2012.

  Posts: 141

  I liked most of your contribution. I have a different view of the "supreme" court. They were suppose to be one of the 3 equal branches of government. They have managed to squeeze themselves into being the final arbiter of everything, not a tri-equal branch. If they were all intelligent law scholars, court decisions would be 9-0 or at the worst 8-1. But the court has always followed ideology rather than law. Last time I looked, the constitution did not have a pulse nor did it breathe, it is pretty easy to read. why arent their opinions more legally based ?? No matter who is on it, all decisions will be political and ideological.

  • Link

   

• Mike Adams posted at 9:50 am on Wed, Jul 4, 2012.

  Posts: 1028

  Mr. Kinderman, my usual animosity and rancor toward your posts aside for the time being, and since your preceding post wasn't hyperbole and anger toward the President, let me say that conservative commentator made remarks that clearly show a lack of knowledge about how are government functions. Many readers, listeners, even contributors to the LTE here lack a knowledge of the US governance. Conservative readers and listeners will take inaccurate and untrue statements and pass them off, further infecting a disinterested populace. Fortunately, many of these members of our society don't vote. Many ill-informed liberals also don't vote either.

  I think everyone has the right to vote and should exercise it every time the opportunity exists. What is wrong, for conservatives and liberals, are people who vote with no idea whatsoever are in propositions or for candidates whose names they recognize. In my lifetime, I have never missed an election, save for one time I was dropped off the voting roll accidentally. It was for an increase on sales tax to build the new jail. My first vote was for Richard M. Nixon, a man I still consider one of our better presidents (Watergate fiasco aside and he did the right thing, he resigned in disgrace).

  I am not aware of any incidents by "liberals" to effect the outcome of elections like the efforts by "conservative" operatives have such as sending letters to democratic voters in SoCal telling them that they will vote on Wednesday, republicans on Tuesday that happened several years ago. Or the removal of anyone who was registered democrat being removed from voting rolls because they shared the names of someone in prison. I'm sure you will be able to provide exemplers though.

  As to Supreme Court decisions, I have always felt that what they decide is it. These are all very smart individuals, most with a lifetime of experience in law. They are far more capable of looking at laws and the constitution and applying that knowledge to the issues that arise. They have made many decisions I do not agree with.....well that's just the way it is.

  If there is any concern about Chief Justice Roberts, I think that it would be appropriate to look at how and why he was selected for a job with such awesome responsibilities. He was nominated to fill the open position held by Sandra Day O'Conner, a good, qualified judge in her own right. President Bush nominated him after withdrawing his first nominee Harriet Walters or some name like that. My impression that he needed a female supreme court member and she was the first female lawyer he saw. She had no business being nominated.

  Once Judge Renquist died, instead of elevating an existing supreme court member, Anton Scalia for instance would have been an outstanding choice, He submitted Judge Roberts name for the ultimate job. I think the republicans and conservatives have gotten what they deserve. A Chief Justice with nowhere near the qualifications and intelligence needed to be there.

  • Link

   

• John Kindseth posted at 8:44 am on Wed, Jul 4, 2012.

  Posts: 141

  Joanne: Todays reading assignment:

  http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ows_and_the_one_millionth_right_feelings_wrong_target.html

  • Link

   

• Joanne Bobin posted at 8:43 am on Wed, Jul 4, 2012.

  Posts: 3215

  Mr. Kinderman wrote: "No, because their decisions are often made without revealing what it is that has them go one way or the other, there will be a lot of prognosticating as to what actually happened that had the Chief Justice come down with such a ludicrous decision."

  Are you seriously stating that Supreme Court decisions are somehow "secret" - that no one knows how conclusions were drawn?

  If so, Mr. Kinderman, you have a lot to learn about how the Supreme Court works. I am not surprised that you are your "conservative friends" do not believe the decision was correct. Was this assessment based on emotional reactions or fact of law?

  I suspect the former.

  • Link

   

• Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:34 pm on Tue, Jul 3, 2012.

  Posts: 2028

  Of all my conservative friends whom I've spoken with regarding the Supreme Court's ObamaCare decision, none have even suggested that these justices be termed out. We believe in the Constitution and especially those parts that the Founder's found necessary - including the fact that once a Supreme Court Justice is confirmed and seated, he/she must either die first or resign.

  On the other hand, do any of my conservative friends believe the decision was correct? Nope - not one. And funny enough as it might be, we're in agreement with the President of the United States. The administration still insists that the mandate is not a tax. Obama wins yet he cannot agree with the decision - what a very interesting and strange predicament we have here, eh?

  No, because their decisions are often made without revealing what it is that has them go one way or the other, there will be a lot of prognosticating as to what actually happened that had the Chief Justice come down with such a ludicrous decision.

  So here we are - ObamaTax is the law of the land and at least for the time being we have to live with it. As a tax (which it IS), it's one of those deal breakers that Obama is going to have to live with come September when the fun really begins.

  Since he cannot run on his pathetic record, he will be forced to at least try to answer just why he is in disagreement with the Supreme Court who handed him this tainted victory. It will be interesting to watch the debates between Romney and the sitting president. I really can't wait.

  • Link

   

• Mike Adams posted at 6:22 pm on Tue, Jul 3, 2012.

  Posts: 1028

  Joanne: I heard one well informed con* just this last weekend saying we needed term limits for members of the Supreme Court!

  My favorite is "how can one man overrule the will of millions of voters?" Or same prefix "....the will of the people?" or variations of the same.

  As to government in high school (and a course I have taught), for a short time (ca 2000), all we heard was how the debate, the actions, the lies and propaganda of the right were "a great civics lesson". Which means it's ok if you lose, just lie and contest, lie and contest. Repeat the mantra over and over and over.
  Well maybe that was Civics. I don't know, a course called "Civics" generally hasn't been taught in CA in decades. Which makes you wonder what class did they learn how government works in if they don't even remember the name of it.

  Of course now with all the mandated homosexual instruction being required, there will be less time to teach about the function of the three branches of government. It will be replaced by "Why does Mary have two daddies?" **

  Lots of stupidity on the right. However to their credit, they have learned that many voters (especially republicans, but some democrats) don't do their homework and assume the loudest screaming must be the correct course of action. They're great at brainwashing. Ever notice how most of their "talk", or points of view, or positions really are just the same inane sound bites over and over again. Like Sarah Palin, just not as simple minded.

  *well informed in this case means that the subject listens to all radio personalities (which are 100% con), watching Fox news, and possibly only looking at con propaganda on the internet.

  **for our conservative readers, I am being sarcastic and mocking. The time spent on the function of the three branches will be replaced by "How did someone born in Kenya and a socialist/communist/leftest/liberal and a deep covert religious terrorist end up being president?"

  • Link

   

• Joanne Bobin posted at 12:14 pm on Tue, Jul 3, 2012.

  Posts: 3215

  "The court should have, if they were so disposed, sent it back to its makers for resubmission and not taken it upon themselves to amend it."

  They amended it? Why is it that so many critics of the Supreme Court don't understand what its function is. Haven't these people ever taken the required US Government class in high school?

  Someone told me the other day that the cognitive ability of the average American is at the eighth grade level. I'm beginning to believe it from what I read in the LNS and this forum.

  • Link

   

• Mike Adams posted at 6:49 am on Tue, Jul 3, 2012.

  Posts: 1028

  Or, they could have fulfilled the obligation for which they were chosen and did what they did.

  • Link