“Every time I let the government make a choice for me, I give up a little more of my freedom. I become more dependent and reliant on government to manage my life. I am right where the Socialists want me to be – perpetually dependent on them.” -J.D. Pendry
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
George Orwell. 1984. New York: Plume, [1949] 2003. 323 pages.In the kind of horrifying coincidence that surely would have prompted one of his more acerbic essays, the news that various U.S. government surveillance agencies have been gathering data from millions of citizens’ phones, email accounts, and web searches broke during the week of the 64th publication anniversary of George Orwell’s 1984. As the news reports poured in, and as sales of 1984 surged by an astonishing 6,884 percent, a friend asked me whether the PRISM story strikes me as more Orwellian or more Kafkaesque.
My response? We’d better hope it’s Kafkaesque.
No one wants to inhabit a Franz Kafka novel. But the surveillance states he describes do have one thing going for them—incompetence. In Kafka’s stories, important forms get lost, permits are unattainable, and bureaucrats fail to do their jobs. Like the main character in Kafka’s unfinished story, “The Castle,” if you were trapped in Kafka’s world you could live your whole life doing nothing but waiting for a permit. But at least you could live. Incompetence creates a little space.
What is terrifying about Orwell’s 1984 is the complete competence of the surveillance state. Winston Smith begins the novel by believing he is in an awful, but Kafkaesque world where there is still some slippage in the state’s absolute control, and still some room for private action. Winston says that Oceania’s world of telescreens and Thought Police means that there are “always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or in bed—no escape.” But he follows that by saying, “Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull.” He also believes that while the diary he keeps will inevitably be discovered, the small alcove in his apartment where he writes his diary puts him “out of the range of the telescreen.”
Since 9-11-01 we have been subjected to more and more loss of freedom through the government’s intrusion into our lives.
These intrusions are done in the name of security. There be terrorists here and there and everywhere.
How many terrorist attacks have occurred in the USA since 9-11?
The number is pretty low. And it has nothing to do with the NSA, or the FBI’s surveillance of Americans.
The scandals that keep coming out of Washington are proof that their agenda is to kill liberty in this country.
Didn’t Obama say that the “war on terrorism is over” in one of his hundreds of speeches? If the war on terrorism is over, then there is absolutely no reason for the government’s overreach into our lives.
Remember candidate Obama in 2007? The then candidate gave a foreign policy speech denouncing exactly what this Administration has done. In fact, they’ve expanded the liberty crushing agenda that Bush pulled with the Patriot Act. Here’s what he said then:
I guess the joke’s on us.
Power corrupts absolutely.
Under the guise of fighting terrorism, the government has expanded its powers immensely. The TSA is the most overbearing and useless organization ever created in this country. They violate our Fourth Amendment rights every time we get into an airport to board a plane. They search 90 year old ladies in wheelchairs under the guise of not profiling Muslims. Guess what morons? Muslim men and women in the age group of 20-40 are the threat. Not some old lady in a wheelchair.
Now we find the IRS targeting certain groups that call themselves the Tea Party, along with other conservative groups against big government, or just wanting to teach the Constitution. Why is that? What end does this government seek?
Control.
This Administration has gone after the First Amendment by targeting the Tea Party and other Conservative groups through the IRS. They have tapped the phones of Americans violating the Fourth Amendment, and they have been going after guns in a vain attempt at taking away our divine right to life, and liberty, by attacking the Second Amendment.
It’s about controlling the masses so that they can enrich themselves and screw the rest of us.
All under the guise of security, or to “protect the children” from harm. If they really wanted to protect the children, then there would be no more gun free zones, and every school in America would have armed staff to stop any idiot that tried to harm them.
Fighting terrorism in America, what a false flag that is.
They keep the stupid people scared in order to run roughshod over the rest of us that know better.
Here’s an interesting article from the NY Times, the fish wrap of record, but they changed it so it wouldn’t be so damning to their messiah.
The editorial originally declared that the Obama “administration has lost all credibility” as a result of the recently revealed news that the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been secretly collecting call data from American users of Verizon under the authority of the Patriot Act.
The media has been complicit in this whole charade with their idolizing of Obama and their complete lack of integrity. If they had been doing their job from the start, then Obama probably wouldn’t have been elected in the first place, never mind a second time.
I apologize for being all over the map on this, but it really pisses me off.
At any rate, it’s still a decent article for this rag.
Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.
Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.
The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.
The Obama campaign played a big role in a liberal onslaught that far pre-dated Citizens United.
The White House insists President Obama is “outraged” by the “inappropriate” targeting and harassment of conservative groups. If true, it’s a remarkable turnaround for a man who helped pioneer those tactics.
On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.
What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, “its officers and directors,” and its “anonymous donors.” Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a “knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.”
AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer’s response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the “sham” AIP’s “illegal electoral purpose.”
Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).
Injured soldier outraged suspected shooter receives salary while his family financially struggles in recovery
The Department of Defense confirms to NBC 5 Investigates that accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan has now been paid more than $278,000 since the Nov. 5, 2009 shooting that left 13 dead 32 injured. The Army said under the Military Code of Justice, Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty.
If Hasan had been a civilian defense department employee, NBC 5 Investigates has learned, the Army could have suspended his pay after just seven days.
Personnel rules for most civilian government workers allow for “indefinite suspensions” in cases “when the agency has reasonable cause to believe that the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed.”
Meanwhile, more than three years later soldiers wounded in the mass shooting are fighting to receive the same pay and medical benefits given to those wounded in combat.
More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.
These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.
According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
…it’s not going to after it’s passed, just like the last amnesty boondoggle that was passed in 1986. The ONLY thing it does is give at least 11 million people who broke our laws amnesty for the privilege of doing so, for no other reason than to give the Democrats another permanent voting block that could change the way this country goes forward, or in the liberal case, assbackwards.
I fear that this country will lose any pretense of freedom under Democrats, and the sheeple will just fall in line and let it happen.
This farce of a bill must be stopped dead in its tracks. If the border is not enforced first and foremost, then this sham of “immigration reform” will just open the floodgates for more people and will be rife with fraud from the word go. It’s a failure before it even starts. And don’t tell me it’s for the children. That fucking line of bullshit doesn’t fly with me.
Must Washington fix our broken southern border? You bet.
Will the comprehensive immigration reform bill help? You bet it won’t.
The number one flaw of the bill is it starts by giving amnesty to the unlawfully present population in the United States. As soon as the bill passes, those in the country contrary to U.S. immigration law are granted status to stay.
Amnesty immediately creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the bill’s strategy would drive up the cost of securing the border. To make matters worse, the draft law states that anyone who was present in the U.S. before 2012 qualifies—creating massive opportunity for fraud, since there is no proof required that applicants have been here for several years.
While supporters of the bill trumpet its “border security” features, in reality, the law delivers nothing new—other than the promise of spending a lot more money and running up our debt.
…most people that know the issues well will say that the shit sandwich Obama tried to shove down everyone’s throat was just that. A turd shoved between two slices of bread.
Gun control isn’t the issue that should be debated. It’s the fact that there are “gun free” zones that turn into a violent asshole’s dream killing ground.
If children are our most precious commodity, then why do we guard banks better than the kids?
After the Senate gun control bill died last week, The New York Times said “Democratic leadership aides promised that the effort could be revived if a public groundswell demanded it.” Claiming support from nine out of 10 Americans, President Obama and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) angrily urged the public to rise up in righteous fury and demand action. The results of a new poll by the Pew Research Center can be summed up as a three-word reply to such hopes: not gonna happen.
According to the survey, the share of Americans who reacted negatively to the Senate vote fell short of a majority, with 15 percent describing themselves as “angry” and 32 percent saying they were “disappointed.” Not exactly a groundswell in favor of gun control. On the other side, 20 percent said they were “very happy” about the vote and 19 percent described themselves as “relieved.” In short, even immediately after supporters of new gun controls bombarded the public with images of dead children and grieving parents, insisting that anyone who disapproves of mass murder has no choice but to vote for the president’s policy proposals, there is only an eight-point difference between supporters and opponents of the legislation, and opponents seem to feel more strongly about the issue. Pew also found, in addition to a predictable partisan divide, that opposition to the bill was especially strong among those who said they were following the issue “very closely,” 31 percent of whom said they were very happy the bill failed, compared to 22 percent who were angry.
The visionary liberal land of political and social perfection.
President Obama is not happy — and he isn’t alone.
You know the place.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where gun background checks prevent mass murder.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where Islamic fundamentalists have changed their perception of America because the President travels to Muslim nations to give lovely speeches, believes that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere is a wonderful sign of an Arab Spring, and refuses to use the word “terrorist” whether his administration is investigating Ft. Hood, Boston, or Benghazi.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where a 2009 presidential video proclaiming a “new beginning” in American relations with Iran will halt the effort to build a nuclear bomb.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where the good intentions of Social Security will never bankrupt the Social Security Trust Fund.
• The Liberal Utopia is a land where the good intentions of Medicare could not possibility result in trillions of unfunded liability.
…and anyone with a brain can figure this out. I guess that leaves out liberal idiots. Here’s a report that comes from the Congressional Research Service basically stating the obvious. At least to those of us who can use our brain housing group for something other than a hat rack.
There’s no guarantee new regulations will prevent another tragedy.
That’s the logical, if grim, conclusion to be drawn from a new Congressional Research Service Report on “Public Mass Shootings in the United States.” CRS strives to be studiously neutral, so they’re not going to put it quite like that.
Instead, the report’s authors say things like “the utility of widely employed preventive measures in these areas [law enforcement and public health] to fight public mass shootings is far from clear.”
As the Daily Beast’s Megan McCardle observed in December, “it is beyond horrible to suggest that even a small number of attacks are largely unavoidable. I don’t like saying it. Unfortunately, I think it’s true.” The tragic fact is, there’s not a great deal that public policy can do to avert spree shootings.
Still, it’s worth asking, as CRS does, “what are the parameters of this threat?” The report defines “public mass shootings” as incidents involving four or more deaths and “gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately,” excluding drug trafficking, gang activity and terrorism.
