On January 30, 1033, Adolph Hitler was appointed chancellor of a coalition German government.  The theory was that by sharing power with him in a democratically elected government he would be less dangerous.  But Adolph Hitler had little interest in democracy or a democratic transition of power.  The NAZI party never had the support of a majority of the people, but once they were invited into this “power sharing” “coalition,” the end was near.  Within a very short period of time, Hitler destroyed all his political opposition and took over as absolute dictator.  Hitler and the Nazi Party had zero interest in co-existing with anyone.

There were at least some people in the German army who knew that Hitler was bad news.  Yet there does not appear to have been any attempt at a military coup until Germany was on its way to defeat in World War II.  So the question is:  “if the German military had deposed Hitler, before he had a change to take complete control, would that have been a good thing or a bad thing?

Morsi was elected President of Egypt by a somewhat shaky process.  There were several candidates and Morsi ended up in a run-off with Ahmed Shafik, who had been prime minister under Mubarak.  Even though a majority of Egyptians did not want the Muslim Brotherhood, in a choice between a Mubarak clone and Morsi, they chose Morsi.  It was a big mistake.  Almost immediately, Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood tried to assume total control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/world/middleeast/egypts-president-morsi-gives-himself-new-powers.html?_r=0

President Mohammed Morsi declared himself above any court as guardian of Egypt’s revolution.  The Muslim Brotherhood, with its extremist agenda, was taking over.  No one should have been surprised by this.  Following is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, like the Nazi Party in German, has zero interest in sharing power with anyone.  They viewed the “democratic elections” in Egypt exactly the same way Adolph Hitler viewed elections in Germany in 1933.  They would play the game, long enough to gain power, but once they got in power they quickly took over. 

There were people in Egypt who figured this out.  One of them was quoted in the New York Times article referred to above: 

Amr Hamzawy pointed out that Egypt was facing a horrifying coup against legitimacy and the rule of law and a complete assassination of the democratic transition. 

Obama either wanted Muslim extremists to take over Egypt, or he was too naïve to realize why that would be a major problem.  Either way, if the Egyptian people were expecting help from the United States, they were in for a long wait.

This takeover by the Egyptian military could be a very good thing.  There is a reason so many people in Egypt are celebrating tonight.  They are definitely not cheering for Barack Obama.

Courage is contagious. There are already rumors that moderate Palestinians may finally gain the courage to throw out Hamas.  All over the Muslim world there are signs of people willing to stand up to Muslim extremists. 

The wise move by the United States would be to recognize that this coup is not necessarily a bad thing and to at least acknowledge why it was necessary.  But, not President Obama.  Following is the White House statement: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/03/statement-president-barack-obama-egypt

we are deeply concerned by the decision of the Egyptian Armed Forces to remove President Morsy and suspend the Egyptian constitution. I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsy and his supporters. Given today’s developments, I have also directed the relevant departments and agencies to review the implications under U.S. law for our assistance to the Government of Egypt.  

A terrorist organization dedicated to destroying the United States has been thrown out of power so now Obama wants to cut aid to Egypt?

Obama is asking the Egyptian military to do something incredibly stupid.  The arrest of President Morsi and top leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood may prevent a bloody civil war.  The Egyptian military removed Morsi because they had no choice.  There is no potential for a true Democracy in Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood is part of the equation.  If that was not obvious before Morsi was elected, it was sure obvious when he tried to assume absolute power.  

The Muslim Brotherhood was and is a terrorist organization with zero tolerance for anyone who gets in their way.  One of the reasons Egypt was reasonably stable for all those years was that the Mubarak regime clamped down on the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Egyptian military is now rounding them up again and that is by far the best news out of Egypt for a long time.  Asking the new Egyptian government to tolerate the Muslim Brotherhood is akin to asking the Germans to tolerate the Nazi party under Adolph Hitler.  You cannot reach a reasonable compromise or even consider sharing of power with those who are dedicated to exterminating opponents.  

I am sure that there are some tough times ahead for Egypt.  But the action by the Egyptian military may give Egypt a chance for real democracy.  If the people are given a choice, my guess is that they will reject the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim extremists.

 One thing is certain.  If the Muslim Brotherhood had been allowed to gain total control, democracy in Egypt would have been nothing more than a distant memory.  Perhaps someone should explain that to Obama.  

(When I original wrote this I spelt Morsi as Morsy.  That is the way the White House spelt it on the official press release.  I guess I should have expected them to muck that up too!)

TDM

Everything about the George Zimmerman case reeked from day one.  Originally the police did not even file charges.  That is because from day one the facts supported self-defense.  Then the national media got involved and started screaming racism.  The liberal left has been desperately praying for this kind of case.  This is second only to the dream where an enraged Tea Party member shoots up a bunch of innocent people.  They need a case where an angry white man, with a gun, shoots an innocent black teenager.  They are desperate to showcase the dangers of letting ordinary citizens own guns.

According to the main stream media, Trayvon Martin was just an innocent teenager out to buy candy.  George Zimmerman was an angry white man, looking for someone to shoot with his gun.  Barack Obama even weighed in about how Trayvon could have been his son.

The media still refuses to report the truth about Trayvon Martin. He was a far cry from the innocent dove portrayed on the national news.   In addition, George Zimmerman is most definitely not an angry white man.  Instead, he is a Hispanic man who stood up for black homeless people he felt were being abused by the police.   He was also a man who volunteered to mentor black youths, and he has several black friends.  Of course, the press ignores all of this, because it does not fit the desired narrative.

The prosecutor began his opening argument claiming that Zimmerman profiled Martin, hunted him down and shot him in cold blood.  So far there is no evidence of that.  This theory appears to be based solely on the 9-1-1 call made by Zimmerman.   You know, where he called the police to tell them he was watching Martin.  How many deranged white men out to kill black kids call the police to check in?

No one is completely sure what Zimmerman said.  He does appear to use the “F” word and he does appear to be complaining that these guys always get away with it.  Perhaps that is because there had been a string of burglaries, and they had been getting away with it.

ABC News even edited video to prove that George Zimmerman wasn’t injured.  When someone ran the full unedited clip, it proved the opposite.  We now have numerous pictures and eye witness testimony verifying that Zimmerman was injured and that his back was wet from lying on the grass.

Now, when it is impossible to dispute that Trayvon Martin was on top and he was punching Zimmerman, the liberal left is incredibly arguing that he wasn’t injured enough.  How many times do you need to get your head slammed into concrete before you become concerned?

The prosecution witnesses are consistently ridiculous.   All of the witnesses were helped with their testimony one way or another.  One witness was shown a picture of Trayvon Martin when he was 12 years old and asked if this was the guy winning the fight.  She didn’t realize that Trayvon was 17 years old and six feet tall.   Another witness appeared on CNN in disguise.  The star witness, who received a telephone call from Trayvon Martin shortly before the incident, didn’t bother telling anyone about the call for more than 30 days.  Then the police contacted her and took her to the home of Trayvon’s mother to interview her for the first time.  That is clear evidence of witness tampering.

She has been caught in numerous lies and she couldn’t even read the letter she allegedly wrote.  It is hard to imagine her having a coherent phone conversation with anyone about anything.

There is the only real eye witness, who is clearly not trying to help Zimmerman.  He says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman throwing punches.  Another witness took pictures of Zimmerman, because he noticed the injuries.  ALL of the credible witnesses support Zimmerman’s version of events with no exceptions.

But perhaps most devastating was the testimony of the lead homicide detective.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-trial-day-6-analysis-video-serino-testimony-challenges-very-foundation-of-states-charge//#more

He admits that there is no evidence that anything Zimmerman said was inaccurate.  But he was ordered by the prosecutor to interview Zimmerman again and try to intimidate him into admitting guilt.  In other words, the prosecutor needed Zimmerman to confess because the evidence didn’t support charging him with a crime.  Media pressure demanded that Zimmerman be charged with a crime.  At one point this detective lies to Zimmerman and says there is a video of the whole event.  Zimmerman responds by saying: “Thank God.”  Wow!  A real admission of guilt there!  While under oath, the detective admits that he believes Zimmerman is telling the truth.  He should not have been allowed to say that, but he did.

This is as bad as it gets and I am sick and tired of so-called analysts who are afraid to tell the truth.  Even Fox News is afraid to tell the truth.  The prosecutor in Florida is trying to railroad an innocent man solely because of pressure from the main stream media.  The fix was on from the beginning.  The media wants Zimmerman to be guilty.  Every piece of evidence that supports Zimmerman is downplayed as misleading or incomplete.  The most absurd testimony by non-witnesses is viewed as the gospel truth.  But the witnesses have been so bad and the evidence in support of Zimmerman so strong that now everyone admits that Trayvon Martin was on top and that he was punching Zimmerman.  So the latest theory is that Zimmerman wasn’t hurt enough.  He should have waited until Martin was more successful in inflicting life threatening injuries before daring to defend himself.

We cannot tolerate this.  This is no longer about George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin.  This is bad enough when it is about something like abortion, gay rights, or gun control.  It is intolerable when it results in the wrongful prosecution of a clearly innocent man.

There isn’t a shred of evidence to support prosecuting George Zimmerman.  There never was a shred of evidence to support prosecuting George Zimmerman.  It is time we all realize the truth.  It isn’t just George Zimmerman on trial.

This is about racial injustice and it has always been about racial injustice.   George Zimmerman is guilty because he is too white.  Trayvon Martin must be innocent because he is too black. There was a time when a black man could not get a fair trial in the South.  That was disgraceful.  It was wrong.  Fortunately, those days are gone.  But now, people such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, with the loud support of the main stream media, are doing everything possible to make sure George Zimmerman does not get a fair trial.  There was relentless pressure on the prosecutor to charge George Zimmerman and there is extreme pressure to find him guilty.  We are being warned of possible race riots if the jury makes a mistake and votes for acquittal.  No one should ever be charged with a crime because of lies and distortions in the main stream media.

This case never warranted one second of major media coverage.  I am thoroughly convinced that if the media had not intervened, George Zimmerman would never have been charged.  At worst, he might have been charged with manslaughter, but I doubt that any prosecutor would have even tried the case.  If George Zimmerman was black and Trayvon Martin was white, the media would have ignored this case.

George Zimmerman is not on trial, white America is on trial.  George Zimmerman is not on trial, anyone who wants to own a gun for self-defense is on trial.  George Zimmerman is not on trial, we are all on trial.  We are Zimmerman.

TDM

The Supreme Court has kicked the Proposition 8 ball, somewhere.  Governor Brown stopped celebrating long enough to order everyone to get ready to marry same sex couples.   But at least Governor Brown gave some time for opponents  to appeal. 

The Ninth District Court immediately removed the stay, telling California to go ahead with same sex marriages.  Attorney General Kamela Harris almost immediately conducted a same sex marriage ceremony herself. 

The gay community is celebrating and the main stream media is cheering.  Unfortunately, they are all missing the point.  This really has nothing to do with same sex marriage.  It is far more important than that.   One Judge arbitrarily decided that the California constitution did not matter and he overturned the decision by 7,001,084 voters in California.  When the Governor and the Attorney General refused to appeal his decision, they were also deciding that political correctness trumps our constitution.  That endangers every citizen in this state: 

Following is the oath of office for Governor of California and the Attorney General of California:

“I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

Both Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris had a duty to defend Proposition 8, whether they liked it or not.  If they did not want to appeal the decision of Judge Walker, they should have either resigned their office, or recused themselves and delegated this to someone else within the California Government.  They refused to do either.  Instead, they deliberately violated their oath of office.

The California Constitution is deisgned to defend all of us against tyranny.  Following is a link to the DECLARATION OF RIGHTS found in the California Constituion:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

This time the Governor and the Attorney General didn’t like section 7.5  Suppose, in the future,  we get a Governor and an Attorney General that decides they don’t like Section 8:

 SEC. 8.  A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing

a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race,

creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.

If you do not believe this is possible, you haven’t been paying attention to countries governed by Sharia law. 

We either have a constitution or we don’t.  We either have public officials who are willing to abide by their oath of office or we don’t. The duty to uphold the constitution trumps political correctness.

The California constitution itself has been put behind the 8 ball.  That is a very dangerous place to be. 

TDM

Yesterday was a great day for gay activists, or was it?  There certainly was a lot of celebrating and the pundits on TV were all saying this.  But then I realized that something strange had happened.  Anthony Scalia gave a scathing rebuttal to the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act provision, but he actually agreed with the decision regarding Proposition 8 in California.  That gave me pause.  If he was so dead set against gay marriage, why the decision on Proposition 8 which appeared to approve gay marriage in California?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-prop-8/index.html 

CNN added a little fact and a lot of assumption.  They were correct in describing the Supreme Court decision, but not necessarily correct in assuming that this will result in an immediate resumption of gay marriages. 

So I did a little research and I think the following article on Breitbart.com provides a clue: 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/26/Not-So-Fast-Prop-8-Still-California-Law 

The Supreme Court did not overturn Proposition 8.  They didn’t even rule on the merits of Proposition 8 or the merits of the lower court decisions.  Instead they ruled that the appeal of Judge Walker’s decision itself was a non-starter because the petitioners did not have standing in federal court.  They ruled that only the Governor or the Attorney General could have filed that appeal.  They just tossed the whole process in the trash and told them to start over.  In making this decision they vacated the decision by the Ninth District Court to uphold Judge Walker’s decision.  That means that the only decision that remains in effect regarding Proposition 8 is Judge Walker’s decision. 

It is vital to point out that Proposition 8 was upheld by the California Supreme Court.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 

The California Constitution does not allow anyone to ignore a California law because they consider it to be unconstitutional, unless that opinion has been ratified by an appellate court.  That would appear to mean that Judge Walker’s opinion is nice, but it doesn’t change the law.  His decision must be confirmed by an appellate court or it has no enforcement value.  The failure of Governor Brown and/or Attorney General Harris to appeal Judge Walker’s decision means there was no appellate review.  Since there was no appellate review, the law remains in effect.  Walker’s opinion is only that, an opinion.  It does not have the force of law.  

The California constitution is actually quite clear about this: 

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 3  STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SEC. 3.5.  An administrative agency, including an administrative

agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no

power:

   (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a

statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an

appellate court has made a determination that such statute is

unconstitutional;

   (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

   (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a

statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit

the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a

determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by

federal law or federal regulations. 

Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris refused to appeal Judge Walker’s decision.  That is why those other people filed the petition, the State of California failed to file an appeal to uphold its own law.  Now the Supreme Court has ruled that since neither Governor Brown nor Attorney General Harris filed an appeal, no appeal has been filed.  The Ninth District Court’s decision is irrelevant, because they had no justification for even reviewing the file.  

It is just possible that we will go back to August of 2010, when Judge Walker issued his opinion and start over.  It could easily take another three years, or longer,  for this to work its way, again, through the legal process and then there is no guarantee of results.  In the meantime the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, so it remains the law of the land. 

Governor Brown was quick to order state agencies to get ready to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.  I suspect some very smart lawyers are already preparing the request for an emergency injunction, in state court, for a restraining order preventing him from doing that.  They have a good argument, because the state constitution is quite clear.  

If this is true, there are going to be a lot of very embarrassed people, a lot of very angry people and an enormous amount of frustration.  It is bad enough to lose.  The ultimate insult is to find out that in winning you actually lost.  I do not know how this will work out, but my guess is that it is at least murky enough to slow things down.   Don’t be surprised to learn that instead of adding clarity to this issue, the Supreme Court just brilliantly kicked the can further down the road. 

TDM

Eric Snowden is now in Moscow, allegedly with 4 laptops full of NSA data.  He may or may not be on his way to Ecuador via Cuba.  I can pretty much guarantee that Russia will borrow those laptops for a while and the results will be the worst security breach for the United States since the capture of the U.S.S Pueblo.  Putin will publicly release everything that is embarrassing to the Obama administration and will exploit the rest.  This is turning out to be a huge blunder. 

By making this maneuver, Snowden has moved totally into the treason category.  But the problem is that this didn’t have to happen.  If, and that is a big if, the data he had was that important, the U.S. should have authorized someone we trust to make him a deal.  At least in Iceland the Russians would not have access to our data.  But instead the United States filed charges against him and tried to intimidate Hong Kong into giving him up.  It sure looks like Eric Holder, once again, botched it up and didn’t get the paperwork filed properly and on time.  They made Snowden’s ultimate decision very easy and his ultimate decision is the worst case scenario for us.

Up until now, the information Snowden had released did not jeopardize anything but the abuse of power by the Obama administration.  But, if the Russians gain unfettered access to those computers they may learn more than even Snowden can imagine.  According to reports Snowden is holed up at the international airport in Moscow.  I doubt seriously that Putin would have agreed to this without something in return.  That something was probably access to those computers. 

The most important piece of information available to any country is to learn what your enemy knows about you.  Everybody knows that spying is going on.  That is hardly news.  During World War II, Japan did not realize that the U.S. had broken the diplomatic code and they did not realize that the U.S. had broken the Japanese naval code.  The Battle of Midway was lost, at least in part, because the U.S. learned that Midway was the target of their next invasion.  During the battle of the Atlantic, Allies had broken the German Enigma code.  If German had known that the Enigma code had been compromised, it would have made a major difference.  

This is looking worse by the minute.  According to the following, Snowden chose this last job because he knew it would gain him access to all the systems.  If that is true, then the foreign agent theory starts to gain a little weight.  This may not be a country, it could be an organization like Wikileaks.  Someone told this guy where to go and what to do.  He didn’t learn that in school and he probably didn’t figure it out by himself.  The following ABC News report is stunning:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/06/officials-how-edward-snowden-could-hurt-the-u-s/

There are reports of “gaps” in his resume.  Following is the timeline published by ABC on June 13, 2013.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/timeline-edward-snowdens-life/story?id=19394487&page=2

He claims to have worked “undercover” for the CIA in Switzerland.  He claims to have attended a University of Maryland campus in Japan.  His alleged college work is not verified by transcripts.  He definitely doesn’t have a degree in anything. 

So we ended up putting someone with gaps in his personal history, unexplained overseas travel, questionable associates, no documented experience and unverified academic history in a position of power.  Does this sound familiar?  Why would we have expected a different result?

TDM

According to the following story, the NSA is very concerned about the quality of the background investigation of Snowden:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/nsa-data_n_3474820.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D333404

It is pretty embarrassing when someone with a top secret clearance spills the beans to the Guardian UK and then runs off to Hong Kong.  I can already guarantee you that there are far fewer holes in the background of Eric Snowden than there are with Barack Hussein Obama and we elected him President.

I speak from experience, because I had a top secret clearance.  It took several months to conduct my background investigation and they checked everything.  I even had friends from high school telling me about how someone sat down next to them in a bar and started up a conversation.  Then at one point they were casually asked if they knew me from high school.   They checked my background from date of birth until the day I got my clearance. 

They would never have considered giving a security clearance to someone who could not verify where they were born.  I am not a birther, but Barack Obama has never produced a certified copy of his birth certificate.  No representative from the State of Hawaii has ever said the following:  The birth certificate presented by Barack Obama is identical to the one we have on file.   They have said they have his records, that they can verify he was born in Hawaii and that he is a U.S. citizen.  All that is nice, but we still don’t have a single copy certified copy of his birth certificate.  You know the kind we all needed to get a driver’s license or register to vote, before Democrats decided that was no longer necessary.  I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and I am really sure he wasn’t born in Kenya.  But that doesn’t change the fact that he has never produced this most basic of personal documents. 

This was discussed, again, this week on MSNBC:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/18/republican-congressman-questions-obamas-validity/

Once again, MSNBC missed the point.  This is a photocopy of a long form birth certificate that looks like it was photocopied out of a book.  Does your birth certificate look like this?  Do you know anyone else whose birth certificate looks like this?  I mean this is not hard.  You ask for a certified copy of your birth certificate and you get it in about two days.  This is like driving around with a photocopy of your driver’s license.  Do you think any cop would accept that, not matter how “good” it looked? 

They would never have considered giving a security clearance to someone with a history of drug abuse.  That includes pot smoking.  Barack Obama admits to using cocaine and smoking pot enthusiastically.  This would have disqualified him for a security clearance.  I had one guy who went all the way through language school with me.  The Air Force had invested over 18 months in training him.  They found out he had smoked pot one time and they immediately booted him out of the program.  To all you kids out there who think that all the baby boomers smoked pot, I guarantee you that if they did, they didn’t work for the NSA if anyone knew about it.

They would never have considered giving a security clearance to someone who had traveled overseas under less than clear circumstances.  Barack Obama’s great adventure to Pakistan, after leaving Occidental College, would have drawn a lot of scrutiny.  It was probably not illegal to travel to Pakistan at that time, but it would have raised some very red flags. 

They would have never considered giving a security clearance to someone who had close blood relatives living overseas.  Barack Obama has several close relatives, including a grandmother and a half-brother living in Kenya. 

They would never have considered giving a security clearance to someone who was close friends with someone like William Ayers.  Ayers was a leader in the Weatherman Underground, a terrorist organization that conducted bombings against government facilities, including the pentagon.  They don’t give security clearances to people who are best friends with enemies of the state.

Both Barack Obama and Michelle Obama surrendered their law licenses.  Michelle surrendered hers in 1994.  Barack Obama surrendered his in 2007.  There are no public records verifying the reason.  Factcheck.org tried to discredit rumors that both Obamas surrendered their licenses to avoid discipline.  The following article contains their report:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

Actually this report only demonstrates the lengths to which factcheck.org went to try and cover for Obama.  The exact wording is as follows:

Neither of the Obamas has any public record of discipline or pending proceedings against them, according to the online public registration records of the ARDC. We also confirmed that with Grogan, who said that the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.”

I am sure this is absolutely true and absolutely meaningless.  The key word is “public.”  There is no “public” record.  The official policy of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) is that if the ARDC investigates a licensed lawyer, the proceedings become public record, but the ARDC won’t punish or publicize finding against a lawyer who voluntarily resigns.  The only thing factcheck.org was able to prove was the lack of a public record.

Barack Obama surrendered his law license after a request was filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission asking that the application to the bar that Barack Obama had filed in 1991 be examined in light of information that had recently been made public.  Was that a coincidence?

You will also notice that factcheck.org uses tortured logic to try and prove that Obama didn’t say what he said during a State of the Union address.  What Obama actually said:

Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we’re all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.. 

He was clearly quoting the Declaration of Independence and he was clearly referring to the Constitution.  Actually, I don’t care, because Obama didn’t write the speech and the blame for this mistake rests with his speech writer and his TelePrompter.  I only mentioned to show that factcheck.org went to great lengths to avoid actually checking facts.  They should have said:  “Obama made a mistake.”  I mean who really cares?

I firmly believe that at some point all of this will eventually come out and there are going to be a lot of red faces.  But, I doubt that this will happen while Obama is still President.  We are just now learning about JFK and he has been dead for nearly 50 years.  We recently learned that JFK wrote in his diary,about the great job Adolph Hitler was doing in Germany.  Nice!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/24/jfks-secret-diary-fascism-right-thing-for-germany/

Of course the main stream media never reported this, because Camelot is still Camelot.

Snowden probably should not have been given a clearance, but he was vetted a lot more than Obama.  Maybe, during our life time, we will learn the truth.  Don’t hold your breath.

TDM

Several years ago, while working at a major corporation I got a threatening letter from an attorney.  This was no surprise because I was responsible for handling all the tort litigation nationwide so I got these kinds of letters all the time.  In this particular case the attorney was demanding huge sums of money because one of our janitors allegedly destroyed a crucial piece of evidence.  This plaintiff attorney was apparently planning on filing a major claim against SunGlo.  He left the crucial piece of evidence, an empty SunGlo pop bottle on top of his desk.  Our hero, the janitor, came in after hours; saw an empty bottle sitting on a desk, so he threw it in the trash.  Then, to complete the cycle, he emptied the trash.  The next day the attorney lost his mind when his crucial piece of evidence was missing.  He decided we were to blame because our janitor threw out that extremely important bottle.

I contacted the attorney and told him to tee it up.  I explained that we would not offer him a dime and that if he wanted to sue us and go to court that he better be prepared to explain to a jury why an $8 per hour janitor should take all of the blame for throwing away an empty soda bottle a $300 an hour attorney stupidly left on his desk.  After a few more attempts at hyperventilating his way into undeserved settlement money, the plaintiff attorney hung up and I never heard from him again.  I suspect he had night mares about that jury trial.

The Snowden NSA scandal reminds me of the SunGlo Ultimatum.  While the Obama administration, and their RINO Republican support crew, is busy trashing Snowden and calling him a traitor, they are missing the point.  What idiot allowed this clown to have access to top secret information in the first place?  We are not even sure this guy graduated from high school.  His first job at the NSA was as a security guard.  He has no known academic credentials and certainly no significant work history.  Yet he was hired, as an “analyst,” paid $120,000 per year, and given access to top secret information.  Not only was he given access, apparently no one noticed that he was copying documents and/or electronic files and taking them home.  It is pretty hard to deny that he had access, because he managed to leak information to the press that was so secret Peter King said this damaged National Security:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/06/12/Rep-Peter-King-NSA-Leaker-Traitor-Damaged-Natl-Sec

John McCain and Lindsey Graham are tied in a race to see who can say the dumbest things in front of the nearest microphone.  It was close, but McCain managed to out stupid Graham, which was quite an accomplishment.  He called for the U.S. to bomb Hong Kong until we get Snowden back:

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/06/10/john-mccain-calls-for-invasion-of-hong-kong/

“Either you’re with us or you’re against us,” McCain explained to anchor Freddie Lyon, “and clearly the nation of Hong Kong is against us. By harboring this known cybercriminal they pose a clear and present danger to the American people.

“I don’t want to hear about extradition or rendition or any of that nonsense. This man is a traitor and if we don’t get him within 24 hours I say we need to start bombing the hell out of Hong Kong.

McCain has done something I did not think possible.  He has convinced me that he would have been an even worse choice for President than Barack Hussein Obama.  Before this comment, I wouldn’t have thought that was possible.

Lindsey Graham came perilously close to matching McCain for stupidity.  It is really embarrassing when MSNBC sounds more rational than a Republican Senator:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/12/18922414-we-dont-need-to-censor-the-mail-but

“In World War II, the mentality of the public was that our whole way of life was at risk, we’re all in. We censored the mail. When you wrote a letter overseas, it got censored. When a letter was written back from the battlefield to home, they looked at what was in the letter to make sure they were not tipping off the enemy,” Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don’t think it is.”

This is absolutely brilliant.  He stopped short of bombing Hong Kong but he would consider censoring the mail. This was after he twittered that we should hunt down Snowden:

“I view Mr. Snowden’s actions not as one of patriotism but potentially a felony,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Monday in a post on his Twitter account. “I hope we follow Mr. Snowden to the ends of the Earth to bring him to justice.”

It was a close call as to who won the stupidity award, but bombing Hong Kong is really hard to beat.

There are only two possibilities here, both really bad.  One is that a subcontractor to the NSA was hiring near high school grads off the street, paying them exorbitant salaries  and letting them handle top secret information.  Oh, by the way, they also let them copy secret stuff and disappear.  The other is that this guy had virtually no access at all and King, Graham and McCain started lathering at the mouth before bothering to find out if he leaked anything of value.  In either case, they are acting like blithering idiots.  And these are supposed to be the good guys looking out for us.  Please, please, please Mr. Tea Party, do whatever it takes to get rid of the RINOs.  Sarah Palin, if you ever support John McCain again conservatives should disown you. 

We expected the Obama administration to botch things.  When you elect the most naïve and inexperienced person to ever run for President of the United States you should not be surprised that he screws everything up.  The miracle would have been if this didn’t happen.

So, I think this is similar to the SunGlo ultimatum.  The more anyone points the finger at Snowden, the more they will be pointing the finger at themselves.  The worse he looks, the worse they look. 

I don’t consider him to be a traitor.  I also don’t consider him to be a hero.  I guess I would sum him up, not as the man who never was, but rather the man who never should have been.  No matter how you look at it, it looks bad.

TDM

The NSA data grab scandal is much worse than you think.  In retrospect, we should have listened to those on the liberal left who warned us about the Patriot Act.  We ignored them because they are typically wrong about everything.  But sometimes those people who disagree with us are actually right.  In this case those people who criticized the Patriot Act are being vindicated and all those Republicans and Democrats who signed off on this in the name of national security are about to be embarrassed.

We should have known better.  The problem is that if you allow the government to have access to this information, for any reason, at some point the data will be abused.  We don’t know if the Obama administration has limited itself to hunting terrorists, but ultimately it was only a matter of time before someone misused this data.

Under this administration the IRS abused power by targeting the Tea Party and other conservative groups.  How can we be sure that it started and ended there?

The Obama campaign has been bragging about his massive data base and the use of this information to win elections.  Following are two links confirming this.  The first is from Cyber News Network with the transcript of an interview by Maxine Waters earlier this year:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-waters-obama-campaign-database-has-information-every-individual

She said that the Obama campaign had database that “will have information about everything on every individual.”

“And that database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it’s never been done before,”

There was also in interview as recent as May 19^th, where the person who set up the data mining for the Obama campaign was bragging about it:

http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/19/obama-campaigns-chief-data-guy-gets-candid-about-the-data-strategy-that-won-the-election/

The chief scientist of the campaign, Rayid Ghani, said that they used this data to help Obama win the election.  He is now the chief data scientist at the University of Chicago.  His program is called:

“Data Science for Social Good.”  That is a pretty ominous title when we now know the NSA has data about everything from everyone. 

Obama was probably re-elected in large part because he was better at data mining then his opponents.  Imagine what they could do if they really did have information on everything about everyone.

It is even more frightening when one reads the interview by Snowden, the man who leaked information about the program:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video

“The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to,” he said.

He describes the problem with a clarity is that stunning:

“Now increasingly we see that it’s happening domestically and to do that they, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyses them and it measures them and it stores them for periods of time simply because that’s the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends. So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they’re collecting you’re communications to do so.”

“Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere. Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that analyst is empowered with. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything. But I sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a Federal judge to even the President if I had a personal e-mail.”

His point it that it wouldn’t even have to be the government who does this.  Compare this to the current IRS scandal.  We don’t know, yet, who was the mastermind of this or even if there was a mastermind.  What we do know is that confidential information was exploited resulting in an abuse of power that may have influenced a national election.

Right now there are a handful of people like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Diane Feinstein who still appear to be more concerned about tipping off potential terrorists than in protecting our personal privacy.  We are probably going to see an attempt to stifle any investigation by trying to prosecute Snowden.  There will be a full scale effort to suppress this story.  I don’t think that is going to work.

This story is going to explode and it will destroy anyone who gets in the way.  That includes the President and those members of congress who seem oblivious to the problem.  I really think this is a game changer.  I think this will be that rare issue where Liberals line up next to Conservatives united in opposition to a threat to all of us.

At the end of World War II, in his speech accepting the surrender of Japan, General Douglas McArthur said the following:

The destructiveness of the war potential, through progressive advances in scientific discovery, has in fact now reached a point which revises the traditional concepts of war.

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace…. Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door.

McArthur was naïve in believing that we would find a peaceful way to end conflicts.  The Korean War, the Vietnam War and the two Iraq wars dispelled that theory.  But what we have been able to do is to avoid nuclear war. 

We are now on the verge of creating a weapon potentially more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.  We are on the verge of compiling all of the personal information on every human being who ever used a phone, a cellphone, an e-mail or even surfs the web and making it accessible to government.  Knowledge is power and this type of knowledge would inevitably result in absolute power.  Perhaps, just perhaps, we are very fortunate that this scandal broke now, rather than later.  It is impossible to overstate the danger.  It is equally impossible to overstate the need to get this fixed now.  The only solution is to prevent the government from ever gaining access to this information, for any reason at any time.  Ben Franklin said it well long ago:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This was true in 1775.  It is even more true today.

TDM

When we were kids playing a game like “kick the can” we used to yell “Olly Olly Oxen Free.”  That told everyone still hiding that it was ok to come in without penalty.  I can’t think of a better way to describe how the NSA phone tapping scandal released liberals from their cone of silence.  The liberal left came out of hiding and they are the ones screaming the loudest.  Ironically, Obama has more support from Republicans than Democrats, which is remarkable.  I expect the Republican support to start vanishing when more and more facts are released.

This all dates back to 2001, after the September 11 terrorist attack, when George Bush authorized the NSA to go on a terrorist hunt.  They basically looked for people who phoned al Qaeda or other suspected terrorists overseas.  Most knowledgeable people believe that this program stopped at least some terrorist attacks.  George Bush gave a speech in 2006, where he said that he had personally authorized this and he explained his reasoning:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/01/nsa.spying/

The NSA was authorized to intercept certain domestic communications without a warrant, as long as one party was outside the United States.

At the time, Democrats expressed concern over the invasion of privacy and Republicans said it was a small price to pay for security.  At the time it seemed like a good idea, primarily because no one ever accused George Bush of abusing this power.  Even his harshest enemies acknowledge that Bush used this solely to hunt terrorists.  He actually had pretty strong bi-partisan support.  The Patriot Act passed with 98 votes in the Senate in 2001 and 89 votes when it was re-authorized in 2006.

I remember reading about this at the time and asking myself if I would trust a Democratic President with this type of power.  I was not worried about George W. Bush because he seem focused on hunting down terrorists.  But I was very concerned over the next President who might have a very different view of the world.  Unfortunately, that fear has now been justified.

That is exactly the problem with the NSA program.  I doubt that anyone really knows how the Obama administration is using the data, we just know they have access to:  EVERYTHING.  They have requested data on EVERYONE.   Even if they are not abusing it, which is far from certain, this is not acceptable.  Once that data is loaded on a data base it is only a matter of time before it is abused.

As far as I can tell, Bush only asked for access to overseas phone calls.  Mother Jones, not exactly a right wing rag, confirms this:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/timeline-nsa-domestic-surveillance-bush-obama

This time line is devastating for the Obama administration.  There was a remarkable change that started in 2009, right about the time Barack Hussein Obama came into office.  The comparison between the safeguards in place during the Bush administration and the safeguards in place during the Obama administration could not be starker:

2008

July 10: Bush signs the FISA Amendments Act, which gives the federal government the power to compel telecoms to provide access to emails, phone calls, and text messages if one party is “reasonably believed” to be overseas. The law also gives legal immunity to the phone companies that had participated in the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program. Sen. Obama opposes extending immunity to the phone companies, but votes for what he calls “an improved but imperfect bill.” 

2009

April 15: Intelligence officials tell the New York Times about the “overcollection” of domestic communication by the NSA despite the new limits set in 2008.

2011

May 26: Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) say that the Department of Justice has been misapplying the Patriot Act to allow expanded domestic surveillance. “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry,” says Wyden.

2012

July 20: In a letter to Wyden, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concedes that some of the surveillance conducted under the 2008 FISA amendment has “sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law” and that one occasion a FISA judge found such “collection” to violate the Fourth Amendment

December 30: Obama signs a five-year extension of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Amendments to provide more oversight of untargeted mass wiretapping are defeated in the Senate. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says the surveillance of foreigners’ communications in the United States “produced and continues to produce significant information that is vital to defend the nation against international terrorism and other threats.”

2013

March 12: During an intelligence committee hearing, Sen. Wyden asks Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper’s reply: “No sir.”

June 7: “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about,” Obama says at a speech in Silicon Valley. “But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism.” He adds, “”You can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.”

This is really bad, no matter how you look at it.  When you combine this with the obvious abuse of power by the IRS, spying on reporters by the DOJ and the deliberate lies and distortions after Benghazi, this becomes earthshattering.  It is impossible to have any confidence in the integrity of this administration.

I do not know where this is headed, but it is definitely headed toward a very dark place.  We haven’t seen anything this bad since Watergate.  At least Nixon limited his abuse of power to known enemies.

TDM

President Obama appointed Susan Rice to be his National Security Advisor.  Although this is one of the most important positions in our government, it does not require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.  That is why he nominated her for this position.  He really wanted her to be Secretary of State but she could not survive confirmation hearings in the Senate.

This is an in-your-face appointment to both congress and the American people.  It demonstrates a total lack of respect for the Republican leadership.  No one even pretends that her interviews on September 17, 2012 were accurate.  The only question is why she said things that were demonstrably false. 

I believe this is an enormous mistake by Obama.  At a time when he needs to cool down the rhetoric, he just publicly slapped the GOP in the face.  He is forcing them to challenge him.  Now he has doubled down on this by spreading the word that Eric Holder is in for the duration. 

This reminds me of England before World War II.   They were terrified at getting into a conflict with Adolph Hitler.  They bent over backward to try and avoid a war.  Ultimately, Hitler pushed them to the brink and they finally declared war on Germany in September of 1939.  However, England still did not begin to actually wage war against Germany until May of 1940.  That was just before Germany invaded France and just after Germany invaded Norway.  When England finally realized it was in a real war, and they actually needed to fight, they looked for a war leader.  Winston Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister and the rest is history.

Barack Obama has declared war on the Republican Party.  He actually has been waging war on the Republican Party since day one.  But now, with the appointment of Susan Rice and with the stubborn refusal to even discuss dumping Eric Holder, the war has escalated.  Things have now reached the point where Republicans must either fight back or they must surrender. 

The first casualty of war should be the current Republican leadership.  It is patently obvious that the traditional Republican establishment, dominated by RINOs, has failed to even slow Obama down.  He has responded to their attempts at accommodation by publicly slapping them in the face and laughing at them.  It is increasingly difficult to imagine reaching a reasonable compromise with Barack Obama on any issue.  We desperately need strong new leaders to take control.  Don’t be surprised to see a new Speaker of the House and even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell better step up his game or he will be gone too.  When you have to fight a war, you need a war leader.  None of the current Republican establishment need apply. 

The first requirement of a war leader is to find someone with the skill, character and courage to do the job.  My personal recommendation would be Ted Cruz.  He is smarter, by far, than the rest of them.  He has the skill set necessary to wage this kind of battle.  He is a brilliant trial attorney who has argued cases successfully in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.  He is a also solid hard core conservative and he will not back down from a fight.  Even those on the liberal left who hate his guts, fear him, as demonstrated in the following article: 

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/30/ted-cruz-is-turning-out-to-be-a-very-effective-demagogue/

This level of respect is rarely offered to a conservative Republican:

there’s no denying that in this interview, Cruz pulls this off very deftly. The new senator from Texas is turning out to be a highly skilled, highly effective demagogue, isn’t he?

One thing is clear.  A new leader will emerge and the final outcome will be significantly impacted by how well Republicans choose their leader.  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  A more current definition would be for Republicans to retain the same leadership and somehow expect better results.

TDM