Dis Ducibus

The Blog "Political Me" addresses an issue that has been in perpetual debate since the founding of this country, the concept of the separation of church and state and if this country was founded on christian principles.  Many point to President John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli as an early indication of this point, for he stated the United States was "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was an assurance to the Muslims that regardless of religious beliefs and differences, this would at no way affect diplomatic interaction. Prior to the formation of the Republic, individuals came to this new land, in part, with hopes of escaping religious persecution. There were highly successful religious-based government societies such as the Puritans, or ones of abject failure such the Communistic Rappites.





So are we a christian country?





"[W]e have solved by fair experiment the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws" ~Thomas Jefferson.  Thomas Jefferson was a strong proponent for a secular government, yet he saw the importance of a spiritual existence as he was a Deist; he even wrote his own version of the bible.   He stated that man was capable of following both God's and Man's laws, regardless of denomination and lack of state support for any one in particular. History lists numerous examples of state sponsored religion, and the suffering of those who did not follow along, hence risking the perilous journey of crossing an ocean by these individuals.  Jefferson knew this.  He also would have been aware, that regardless of the numerous ideologies, they were all Christian in design.  It was as though with the separation of church and state, Jefferson knew that there would be an allowance for a moral compass to guide a man. Then the new government could stay true to its purpose without having to legislate compulsory behavior.  It set up a system of community standards. It allows for the freedom of association.

He understood the importance of religion in society and the separation necessary with government, stating
"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another" for it provided the opportunity to worship as one pleased."I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor." ~ Thomas Jefferson.

In place in the Constitution is the Freedom of Religion.  This keeps the government from discriminating or supporting any particular religion, an echo from times past when people risked everything to come here. That in of itself to me is all the evidence I need that supports the intended separation of church and state within the U.S. government. But still that question remains,

  
                                                                   Are We?


President Eisenhower signed into law the placement of "In God We Trust" on all currency. He was not trying to combine church and state but to stress the importance of Christianity in public life.

 His own words on the subject.

 "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

This calls into question what religion is and what role it plays in society.  People have pointed to various individuals and their actions as a measure of all associated with Christianity.  Some use this narrow thinking as a soapbox on which to espouse their anti-religious views. So caught up in their self-righteousness they fail to see the actual reality, when it is not twisted by a man's greed.

Christianity places importance on the individual, just like our Constitution does.

Think about it

How many of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments?

Religion provides a guideline for moral behavior.  Honor thy parents, do not commit adultery....
It creates an ideal: a point of reference on which to judge our own actions on
It instills a sense of integrity:  Who are you when no one is looking?
It provides a commonality amongst diversity, regardless of race or class.
It promotes hard work "One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys." Proverbs 18:9
It promotes social values such a selflessness and giving, and consideration of others.
"Love your neighbor as yourself " ~ Leviticus 19:18

Most importantly, it provides hope for a better tomorrow.


It is when the government begins to outlaw religion that I will begin to worry.  U.S.S.R. and China are great examples of this. Socialists dictators, such as Mao and Lenin knew this. Take away any hope, that way the populace will not rebel. 

Yes, there needs to be a separation of church and state, and for the most part we have it, but it is foolish to think that we are not a christian country, regardless of what the very vocal, very small in numbers ideologues may declare.  Our laws, customs, and social norms were all based upon Christianity in some form. Government regulates, it does not teach character. That is the point and importance of being a christian country.

As they say, denial is not a river in Egypt

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  
Remember: Big Brother is Watching You.
  

Ultima Ratio Regum

Scene from the movie "1984"

Big Brother is Watching You.  I end my blogs with this line.  I use it out of irony, a homage to its Orwellian roots, since I write these blogs for my government class.  The term exists today as a close bedfellow of government, championed by those that are decried as "conspicacy theorists" and lacking mental acumen.  But how crazy are they? How many of us know of Operation Northwoods and the government plot to fly a plane into a building and blame it on the Cubans in the sixties to justify military action? Sounds awfully familiar, does it not? This is fact. Or even the more recent one of added mandatory government black boxes in all new vehicles produced after 2015? Here it is in Section 31406 of Senate Bill 1813 (known as MAP-21).  




How many of us have even heard of George Soros: Billionaire foreign national; Contributes heavily to liberal and leftist, radical foundations?   Why did George Soros help fund the Secretary of State Project?  Why did he help craft the stimulus package and then invest in companies that would benefit, as proclaimed by the research in the book "Throw Them All Out" by Peter Scheweizer?  Why did he form a secret billionaire club that is intent on transforming the United States into a European style socialist state that has recently proclaimed that is will "drown Democrats and President Obama’s re-election campaign in an ocean of cash this year"?  (Wait a minute, I thought republicans were the party of the rich. hmmm.)


Here he is in an interview declaring that there needs to be a "New World Order."


Does anyone remember the President stating in a speech his need for a "civilian army"? Well, he got one in the TSA, which are not federal officers such as the ATF or FBI, but civilians which means that the same rules do not apply.  Hell, here is U.S.  House Rep. Sheila Jackson (D-TX) just recently announcing TSA agents on Houston buses. ( Lets not forget about VIPR in Tennessee.)  Really? Of course this is the same woman that planted a fake doctor in her town hall meeting.  Does anyone remember that? Does anyone else remember that Hitler had a "civilian army" as well? Does anyone remember the TSA declaring that transportation did not mean just airports? Does anyone remember the former director of the TSA accepting money from the very company that he was championing the government to buy the full body scanners from? (The hiring practices of this administration frightens me). Oh,  lets not forget the witness stating how the "Underwear Bomber" was a false flag operation, and now we have in place more restrictions and full body scanners in America airports because of this incident. 


Oh yeah, there needed to be a public incident to justify such action. Hmmm.  Does history seem to be repeating?  


Does anyone remember the governor of North Carolina,  Beverly Purdue (D) stating the need to suspend Federal elections? She was not the only one to do that.  It was parroted in other places as well.  But they said that she was "just making a joke." 

 Here is that video.  


Watch it. Tell me by the way she speaks it if you think she was making a joke.

Or when the President declares he will have more flexibility with dealing with the Russians after the elections.
what else has he been waiting to make a move on? Gun control?  I can remember the President, months prior to the outbreak of the "Fast & Furious" scandal, telling Sara Brady that they were "working behind the scenes" on gun control.  But of course, neither him nor Eric "let's brainwash people into believing guns are bad" Holder knew of this operation...  Riiiiiiiggghht. 


But hey, at least gun control advocates have their heroes, as this image so eloquently sums up.

So using logic, if Hilter took peoples guns away, and Hilter was a Nazi, then anyone whom wants gun control is a Nazi... hmmm.   


The most frightening of this all is that the Obama Administration may be trying to steal the election.  


After failing to have the talking point of "suspending federal elections" catch on and previously losing big during the midterm elections, this administration is moving forward with something that scares me to no end.  The Obama administration has contracted out the vote tallying for this coming federal election to a spanish-based company owned by George Soros and whose CEO is a communist. WHAT? How can anyone justify this action?  Why not use an american company? Why is there such an emphasis on using electronic votes and not paper ballots?  Why do communists keep popping up around this man?  Why did Team Obama strong arm and intimidate primary voters in 2008? Hell, they made a film about it that is ignored by the MSM! How can anyone continue to support this Administration?  Why, because they have a (D) next to their name? Looking at this one can begin to see why they are against "voter i.d." laws, even after it was proven  in New Hampshire and even Washington D.C. that voter fraud can and does occur.


 Its like rooting for your favorite sports team.  Regardless if they win or lose you are still stuck where you were in life.  You still have to shell out $60+ for a nosebleed ticket even after having raised your taxes to pay for a new stadium where you get charged $75 for a pizza after paying $40-100 for parking (as they do in Dallas, Tx.), but in this case the freedoms you have enjoyed are being taken away, not just your money. Is this alright since you choose to identify with these people? 


Where is the media in all of this?


Ahhh, yes the "Media". It is complicit in this as well.  My Government book told me that the media was "unbiased" that the "American news media provides generally balanced coverage..."  I scoffed at this promulgation. Generally?  What is that, 40-60 percent?  It does not mean 100%, that's for sure.  Having been alive and paying attention for the past 30+ years, my personal experience tells me otherwise.  There may be an unbiased approach when some local news stations are doing a piece, but any reporting that remotely has to do with a MSM outlet, biased intent tends to be a foregone conclusion  . Perhaps they never knew or just chose to ignore the study waaaaay back in 2005 (five years prior to the printing of the book) by a UCLA political scientist that shows how far spread the bias is when stating "Despite studies to the contrary..." What studies and by whom?  They don't say.  I found that UCLA study within 15 seconds on a Google search. Guess they weren't trying to find other viewpoints that did not fit the narrative.  At least the authors were factual in stating the bias in the Presidential campaign, as backed up by ABC News in this article about the 2008 presidential campaign which found the media was biased in its coverage. Here are the charts that is gives, which when one actually reads the website it references the website itself states that the media is biased in its reporting.  But how do you go from the beginning of the section saying the media is not biased but then end it with showing how biased it actually is?  How do you say it was for commercial value and not political as well, such as when Time Magazine printed the Presidents face numerous times on its cover prior to the election? A look at this website shows how many times, including the dates, plus the numerous other publications he appeared on as well, and this did not have a political connection?  


 It saddens me to know of the many young impressionable minds that read this, and ultimately accept it, without actually asking whether it is true of not, and later regurgitate it to others.


 After witnessing the doctoring of evidence by CNN, NBC, and ABC and the introduction of the term white-hispanic to the modern day lexicon, how can any rational person still believe that tripe?  Why was Drudgereport blasted for showing the true pictures of Trayvon Martin?  How about the CBS fiasco with Dan Rather?  Why does my book make no mention of the "Journolist Scandal" which shows how widespread the bias is rampant in the Media? Here's an article in USAToday that sheds more light on the bias in the media .  The media can be biased by not including the relevant facts, or even reporting on the events at all.  I'm sure I will hear all about Ann Romney's character flaws, and nothing about Michelle Obama being disbarred for extortion, and quite honestly I would rather not hear about either one.  But hey, when George Soros's money can be found in 30 plus different American Media outlets, is one really shocked by this at all? 


Hell, I know that there was a letter Newt Gingrich wrote in the 70's applying to be the President of the University where he taught but I do not have one example of scholastic work from the Ivy-Leagued educated Sitting President. Why?  




One of my favorite meme's.

Why is the question.  Why is he romanticized into being something he was not? It just shows how far along we have walked this path that less than savory characters become idolized heroes. Why is there this upholding of these "revolutionaries" that were nothing more than murderous thieves whom wanted everything to themselves? He told his men to fight to the death, yet when the Bolivians surrounded him in that cave he said not to shoot, he was Che', he was valuable.  Ah yes, what a profound and great leader he was.

I'm reminded of an episode of  "Sealab 2021" in which the Captain Murphy launches a communist revolution, and towards the end of this episode I heard one of the truest quotes I will ever hear, ironic as it may be from a cartoon.

 Quinn: “I think the great struggle is all made up…the only thing we’re struggling against is him.”
Debbie: “So wait, you’re saying communism is bad?”
Quinn: “What are you, two years old? Hasn’t history proven that Marx’s vision of an egalitarian utopia is unattainable, inevitably creating an oligarchy more oppressive to the proletariat than the bourgeoisie it vilifies?”




Are there are legitimate forces that conspire to have  a "revolution" in America? Perhaps one created from the depths of poverty much like the one the National Socialists did in Germany? After all, people on Government assistance is way up in the past three years.  When one looks at the whole and not the pieces, it sure seems that way. From the influence of anti-american foreign nationals, to the rigging of this years elections, to the fabrication of events, it scares me when people are still supportive of these individuals, for that states that they either do not know any better or just do not care. The ends DO NOT justify the means. Perhaps if children still read Aesop's fables such as "The Farmer and the Viper," the inherent evil would be readily recognized. 


Is Conquer and Divide part of their battle plan? You see it all the time with the diabolical Hyphen. Nothing is more evil for it it used to separate Americans into subgroups, to get us to fight each other endlessly. Those who proclaim equality for all and the end to racism are the first to judge you by your race, and the first to state what race they are.  


Louie XIV cast upon his cannons "The Last Argument of Kings."  When all else has failed, the talking, the diplomacy, all there is left is to inflict your will by the means of force. 


How far are we from this final solution? How much longer until the faux realities created by partisan words begin to crumble and the emperor is shown to have no clothes? What happens when they can no longer conceal the fraud?  Will they let go of power so easily?  


History has shown otherwise. An insightful read, Twelve Days: The Story of the Hungarian Revolution shows the realities of "utopian" society when it begins to break down; the lessons within this book still ring true til this day. 


It is just like George Orwell is quoted as saying, which now seems to be  hauntingly true 

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

Remember: Big Brother is Watching You

Vulpem pilum mutat, non mores

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 The  Blog "Engaging in American Government" recently wrote an editorial piece on the Trayvon Martin Shooting . I was amused by the initial response when she had heard of the incident, citing the "blatant racial overtones and disregard for justice," that she felt, and stressing the need for justice to be done, though she never does state  what that justice is, and what form it should take.  Mind you, I was not "amused" as in a tickling of my funny bone. Neigh.  It is in the realm of an ironical use, to state my chagrin for the mob mentality that is being perpetrated by the Media. With the passage of  time, the author comes to realize that not is all that it seems with the incident, that *gasp* the public did not know all the facts surrounding the case and that the media was and continues to be complicit  in inciting mob violence.  Though coherent and well written, the author stops just short of the other realities of this case in concerns to seemingly everyone else.

Race.

Yes, someone was killed.

But to cover your eyes and to not admit what the "unbiased" media has done to attack George Zimmerman is a crime in of itself.  The purposeful and negligent act of using undated photos to portray a young adult with criminal tendencies as a child victim is criminal, for what purpose does it achieve other then to fuel the flames?  This was also coupled with the purposeful and negligent act of stating George Zimmerman as white, and then when is came out that he was in fact not white, that he was jewish, peruvian, and white.( A Hebrew Mestizo, if you will.)  The media then created the term "white-hispanic" as to not lose the racial division that is trying to be achieved.  So, using the logic involved, stating father's race first then mother's second ( which is done to not lose the importance of him being white, for it does not have the same ring to it as hispanic-white)  then the media should refer to our current president as black-white, since it seems to be lost to the annals of time that his mother was indeed white.  Then you have NBC creating fake audio to make Zimmerman, a person who tutors unprivileged black children mind you, appear as "racist." Or CNN's claim the 911 tape had racial slurs but then after further examination that it indeed did not.  Let's not forget our dear President chimed in on this issue, stating that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon, yet has remained silent about the bounty placed on Zimmerman's head by the New Black Panther Party, or in fact how he has not come out once and said "hey guys, let due process work, lets not get violent."  To be Silent is to Condone.  As a leader, the moment he spoke on the issue is the moment that it became his.  Now is the time for him to show leadership, and he could so by simply stating the need for law and order,and I would proudly stand by the President if he did so, but all we get is deafening silence.


Another murder is happening.  And that is of Due Process of Law.

Our founding fathers feared the onset of mobocracy.  They knew, as the famous quote states, "a democracy is nothing more the two wolves and one sheep deciding on whats for dinner," thus tried to prevent it form occurring, giving to us a republic, a lost concept it seems, to the masses.  The whole situation reminds me of the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.  The Mob wanted their blood but rule of law prevailed and they were given a fair trail. Racial Hatred played its part in this, for after all, it was the British against the Colonists.  Self-proclaimed identity seems to constitute what a person's race is after all, or whatever the "unbiased media" wants to declare you to be,  just ask George Zimmerman or our mixed race president

Acta est fabula, plaudite!

 What motivates a man to do what he does? Why does he choose to see the world the way he does? The things that he says? The President has maintained his silence since the Supreme Court had started the deliberations on the Affordable Healthcare Act, also known as Obamacare.  Today he has decided to speak for the first time. The President supplied rhetoric that was in the same spirit of Progressive Champion Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he threatened to stack the court with judges so he would get more favorable rulings for his New Deal programs.  If only I could go around, inflicting my will upon people, sigh, but I digress.  He called for the conservative judges not to be activists and overturn the 2,700 paged law that he said "passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." By strong he must have been actually meaning barely passed, as it only made it through the house with a 219-212 vote, with all 174 republicans as well as 34 democrats voting against it.  Or how such things like the bribery used in the  Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase or even having to CBO to distort its math in order to make it look like it saved money but in reality it will raise deficit by over $500 billion and that's only in the first ten years with people paying in the first six and receiving the full benefits the last four.  Or maybe he forgot those facts. Or maybe he believes that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it, much like Joseph Goebbel did with his "Principles of Propaganda" The moment when Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it," told me that this whole wretched affair was a sham from the very start and not one person who voted for this bill actually took the time to read it. That is frightening. That alone should be grounds to overturn the law, for how can a person vote with sound mind if they do not know what they are voting for?  Hell, when the President signed it the next day after it was passed, not allowing for five days of review as per the Democratic Platform mind you, do you think he even knew what was in it? He used phrases such as "lack of judicial restraint" and "unelected" when describing the court in his statement,"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law"  Hmmm.  Does he mean "unelected" like the numerous czars and appointments he has made, with some actions that are seen as dubious, such as his recent "recess appointments." After his unelected justice department sued South Carolina, Utah,, Alabama, and Arizona to stop implementation of their "immigration" laws, I wonder if the citizens of those states wondered the same thing, that how can a group of unelected individuals overturn a duly constituted and passed law?  Or the people of California did after an unelected federal judge overturned Proposition 187. I can still remember when he was against the individual mandate back in 2008 running against Hillary in the primary.  He must have forgotten that too. Or how the Justice Department stopped legal defense of the Marriage Act.  Hey, I guess that is one way to get what you want.  Just stop enforcing the law.  Perhaps it is time that the Justice Department was separated from the executive branch and placed under more congressional power, so selective enforcement of law due to suiting one's own political needs does not continue to happen.  Just a thought.  Perhaps Daniel Webster said it best when he spoke these words "Whatever government is not a government of laws, is a despotism, let it be called what it may"

Judicial Activism comes in many forms it seems.   The Judicial system exists as part of the checks and balances of our government, and is there to stop unconstitutional laws from being implemented.  Judging by the constitution is the whole point of them being there. Regardless if you want this law or not, the judges are supposed to follow these principles.  For the president to send a message by responding to a reporter with what I deem to be a planted question, during a meeting with Mexico's and Canada's president, is not a very classy thing to do, nor was it very presidential to address the court as he did.  But all of that aside, healthcare is very important that needs to be addressed, but this entire thing needs to be scraped and  the better parts be allowed to be voted on as individual bills, since if they are so full of merit to begin with it, it should not be an issue, right?  Like the part of the bill that raises rates on military personnel to force them into buying into the individual mandate. Yeah, that part is soooo worth saving. But be rest assured, Our beloved President will be back on television, rewriting historical events with his scripted words once again.


The play is over, clap if you must.


Remember: Big Brother is Watching You

Ethos, Pathos, Logos

Blackframes.net

The Greek Philosopher Aristotle divided persuasion into three categories: Ethos; Credibility , Pathos; Emotional, Logos; Logical.  All acts of persuasion contain at least one, if not all three.  A person who produces such appeals does so to justify the light that the author wants to shed on the circumstance to the audience.  Right or Wrong. Fact laden or absent.  Deceitful or forthcoming.  None of that truly matters, for these are simply tools that are used to build the arguments that manipulate mankind.  Tools have no morality: their end product will be a reflection of the will behind them.  Joshua Holland, writer for the Smirking Chimp, attempts all three in his blog titled "5 Reason's GOP's Attack on Birth Control Screws Men."

With the title itself being logos inspired, Mr Holland delves right into his argument, offering first examples of organisms capable of asexual reproduction, to highlight the absurdity of a odd "linguistic quirk" society has about women becoming pregnant. The first paragraph is amusing and on point though after this paragraph ends is where the blog quickly devolves into more of an unsubstantiated bashing of conservative individuals then it does to actually further his argument.  He offers no real substance, other then scattered statistics, in his vain attempt to justify his "reasons." It is what is not said that undermines this whole piece. The author links to all of his statistics, yet conveniently leaves out any source to explain his denigration of character, as though anyone who reads this should take his word on the moral fiber of the individuals spoken about.  He even goes a step further then this by using blanket statements (i.e."Any red-blooded straight dude should be absolutely appalled by such a prospect" pathos), the specific to argue the general (i.e. "While there was never a more "innocent" time when people only had sex within the bounds of matrimony..." logos ), and promoting the  mindset that one member's actions is reflective of a group as a whole (i.e."that's just a cherished conservative myth" ethos).  His list of reasons can be reduced down to two, with those two being the baser humans drives to reproduce (sex) and the need for security (economic prosperity) are cornerstones on which they are built.

 While there is merit to be found in these, to present them in this way as though they are a foregone conclusion and not open for any debate is deplorable at best, and a downright mockery of any reader's intellect.   The author's ideals for society standards preaches tolerance and open-mindedness of all as long as those individuals agree with him.  Then it is ignominy for all others, and that theme is prevalent throughout ( i.e. "you should be outraged that social conservatives are trying to shame women for using birth control, and thus trying to put a crimp in your game".) The greatest tragedy is the fallacious way in which his presents the "conservatives" argument about the whole ordeal, for those whom read this may not even question the validity of any statements, since the peppering of statistics adds factual value in a paragraph and distracts the reader from questioning what they had just read.  The conservative viewpoint seems to be one of that tax money should not be spent to pay for birth-control, unless when it is deemed a medical issue, or forcing any institution or individual to cover the  expenses for someone else, hence the legislation.  The baseline argument being presented by "the right" is that of self -reliance for birth control, not the dictation of one's actions by another man's will, which the author tries to convince the readers of by taking the espousing of their community standards and construing it as an attack on every one's personal liberty. 


With that aside, a question arises of why this is now an issue.  Title X, an amendment in 1970  to the Public Health Service Act of 1944  makes available birth-control to those  "in need".  Tax money is already paying for these services, why is this not good enough? Why do certain "Liberals" feel the need to inflict their collective will on the populace?  Is it a lost concept that  ultimately with more tax money spent means increased cost for all, instead of localizing the expense to out of pocket for the people whom are not "in need"?  This may be a nothing more then a manufactured distraction, a stunt in which to capture our attention away from the real issue in which started this all, which was the Federal Government trying to force a religious institution to provide birth control. For those whom are familiar with the Sandra Fluke Ordeal with Rush Limbaugh (a great example of someone being taken out of context ), may not know these facts about her, since when one takes into perspective the motivation and character of the people involved, a different story begins to emerge. As, Emma Bull  once said "Coincidence is the word we use when we can't see the levers and pulleys."


Remember:  Big Brother is Watching

Facta Non Verba

Deeds, not words, should be the empyrean guideline in which judgment is passed on the events of history. In the book "1984" there operated a government agency called the "Ministry of Truth."  It was with words that this agency changed the history of the past by rewriting articles and changing the meanings of terms, to what the author George Orwell called "double-think".  Strange times indeed, when reality begins to mirror fiction, nonesuch as illustrated with the ironically titled editorial "Reviving the Constitution".  The author, Andrew Rosenthal, an Editor for the New York Times, praises the Obama administration whilst under the guise of attacking them.  He does a bait and switch style of argument presentation, by pulling a reader in with a particular statement only to use statements counter-intuitive to the original argument. For example, he writes  in the opening paragraph
                                                                           
  "Ever since the George W. Bush administration decide to trash the constitution, the Geneva conventions and federal law, the thought of a government lawyer talking aboutjustice in the age of terrorism has made me cringe.  Although I hoped to lose this automatic reflex when Barack Obama took office, I’ve been distressed by many of his national security moves"

At this moment he is stating to his audience that the Bush presidency was evil and menacing, and was doing everything it could to trample and destroy America.  Yet despite what utopia he had envisioned would happen, here is the new administration ultimately doing the same thing, and even though he mentions he had been "distressed by many..moves" he does not say what these are and he is careful to not let it become an outright attack of their actions.
                                                                         "Some of what they said troubled me.  They both seemed  reject any role of civilian courts in deciding when to kill American Citizens suspected of terrorism. I am not as enamored of military tribunals as Mr. Holder or Mr. Johnson are."

Though declaring that murder of American Citizens as only "troubling,"  he later in the article cites a speech in which the Attorney General made a powerful case for such federal actions.  He makes the argument that the "bad" actions of the Bush Administration were now permissible for continuation since the current Justice Department had found a path to justify such actions under the Constitution.  Mr. Rosenthal  attacks Bush once again by stating the former President only used "legal opinions" to provide merit-able cause, yet fails to  describe what that means exactly. He also undermines any attempt to declare the Obama Administration's actions as being proof of an existence of a global "war on terror", since the term "war" brings actual constitutional considerations.  This is of no surprise since nearly three years ago, the administration sent out in email that the term "war on terror" was no longer to be used, that it would now be called "overseas contingency operation".  A contingency operation does not have the same rules since it is not called a war.  Mr Rosenthal left this out on reason as it serves only to counteract his faux argument. Interestingly, he makes no mention of the NDAA at all in this article, though it now gives the government the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere that is suspected of being a terrorist without a trail, which is an argument central at the heart of his editorial piece.  Nor does he make no mention of Operation Fast and Furious , the botched operation in which the government was intentionally trying to manufacture a crisis in which to undermine the Constitution by legislating gun control.  He also repeatedly shifts attention and blame away from the Obama Administration by mentioning President George Bush five times, in comparison to only twice for President Obama.  Also noteworthy is how he refers to the former President as "Mr. Bush" and Obama as "President."  
               
By the content of the piece, it is very clearly intended for a liberal audience. Unfortunately for liberals, this does not cast them in a positive light, for what does it says about said audience when any person whom pays attention to world and national events can clearly see that this article is lacking in information, offers no real reasoning behind approval for the execution of American citizens,  and is an unapologetic bashing of people who have not been in power for over three years. In one hand, the argument it is full of half truths and talking points to deceitfully argue that the killing of American citizens without a civilian trial is wrong.  Yet, on the other hand, he argues that is now alright since they've changed the terminology and claim the actions to be "constitutional."  This is the definition of Double-Think.

The article is pure propaganda, justifying the nefarious actions for the administration.  There is no "reviving" of the constitution in these actions; it is the pretense of the usurpation of  American principles. As George Orwell fatefully declared " Who controls the past. controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."  

Remember: Big Brother is watching

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

A Photo of an Unmanned Drone

 FAA to Open Airspace Over America to UAVS

                MSNBC is reporting that the President signed legislation last week instructing the Federal Aviation Administration to allow the private and government use of unmanned drones over American soil.  The article goes on  to discuss the various intended applications for civilian use, such as how police and firefighters could use the drones to aid  in their work. It also speaks of a darker use of the technology, citing the potential for abuse, with such concerns as violation of privacy, and what actions are being done  to insure that the operation on the drones is not used in a nefarious manner.
            With many fearing the government intruding more into the private lives of citizens, there is pause for concern to the validity of such claims when legislation such as this is passed as it can and is construed as a way to spy upon the populace.  With prior bills such as the NDAA  and the Patriot Act, this is not a hard conclusion to come by.  An article written about two weeks ago by Business Insider goes into more detail about the larger bill involved.  This was a provision included in a larger piece of legislation that had been held up in congress since 2007, mainly on labor union issues.  The bill  involves the upgrading of the air traffic control systems across the country, allowing for increased efficiency and adding to the overall air traffic.  The article states that the U.S. accounts for 35% of the world's commercial air traffic and airlines themselves 5% of the economy, and with adding in expected increase due to increased efficiency, this part of the bill can be agreed as a necessary step for our nation, with the economic impact hopefully heading towards the positive. It also describes the path at which the bill passed through congress, though the details given for the overall  process are scant, though it names Rep. John Boener and Senator Harry Reid as key players in its passing.
              This could very well be a Trojan horse, a maleficent vehicle  in which the government may use against its own citizenry.  There will now be a network setup, and later another law could change the intended use. This should also stand to help us define what our privacy expectations are in this new century, since now the power to spy upon anyone, anytime, by nearly anyone, is now a plausible reality.  What are we willing to endure, all in the name of "security"? I recognize the need of private use in certain areas, such as the police using UAVs to help catch criminals, or firefighters and rescue teams to search for survivors, for  this I believe is the actual merited purpose of this law, or at the very least the  rouse that was used to sell it.  Until it is defined to be used in a certain way, I will always have my reservations, since who will guard the guards themselves?

Remember: Big Brother is Watching