It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Judiciary, Crime, & Courts => Topic started by: Glock32 on June 14, 2013, 12:52:40 AM
-
I found a link to this in a user comment on a Zero Hedge article, and I have to admit this is the first I've heard of this theory. I think somebody in the regime definitely has something on Roberts, whether it's this or something else.
http://www.libertycaucus.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1e9219842f26c3a8f0c8a656d733e81e&topic=113.msg688#msg688 (http://www.libertycaucus.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1e9219842f26c3a8f0c8a656d733e81e&topic=113.msg688#msg688)
Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.
In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were "from a Latin American country", but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish. Why this matters will become evident.
In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate the anonymity of the adoption process... however there is more to the story.
Drudge did an article in 2005
http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/ (http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/)
The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and
Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”
Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: “Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did
so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.”
Were the Children Adopted from Ireland?
This is not clear ... -- the Associated Press reports that they were "adopted from Latin America." This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American. 1
TIME had a “web exclusive” on the Roberts's (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were “born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart.”
How were the Children Adopted?
According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts's sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption.
As explained by Families for Private Adoption, "[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency."2
But was Robert's adoption utilizing "a legal method"?
Apparently the process of adopting Jack involved some stress for John Roberts. According to Dan Klaidman of Newsweek, during the contested 2000 election, Roberts "spent a few days in Florida advising lawyers [for George W. Bush] on their legal strategy," but "he did not play a central role," because " at the time, Roberts was preoccupied with the adoption of his son."
It is now quite evident that the two Children were from Ireland. Even wikipedia references these adoptions at the time of Roberts' confirmation, and indicates that the children were of Irish birth.
However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.
This would explain the children's origin from a "Latin American country", so as to circumvent Irish law.
Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws -- entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) transporting the children out of Ireland.
Undoubtedly Roberts and his wife spent a great deal of money for this illegal process, circumventing Irish laws and arranging for the transit of two Irish children from separate birth-mothers to a foreign nation. Come 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts' for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as "infants".
Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home.
That would be an inaccurate belief. As recognized, such an inter-country adoption would only come about at great cost, and those who utilize this method are creating a for-profit black market in adoptive children, trafficking across international borders, and doing so from mothers who have not yet given up their children except for that profit. Such actions are creating a very unsavory profit-for-children human trafficking market that even necessitates immediate contact with new birth mothers in dire circumstances to offer financial gain. The entire arrangement is thoroughly predatory, turning children into only financial commodity, and even providing motivation for their birth mothers to give them up! That's an important ethical recognition.
Roberts is not deserving of any sort of respect here, and is only the latest example of people in position believing themselves above the law, beyond scrutiny and exempt from repercussion.
It all now makes sense.
The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure. Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.
This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.
... And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government. Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.
And it is consistent with Obama's Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed <divorce> records in order to win election.
-
Very believable except for this:
The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media,
I don't remember the media being sympathetic towards the nomination of Roberts or any other GWB nominee for the SCOTUS. My memory is that they were hostile and I find it hard to believe that they would have just sat on a story like this when they could have used it to destroy the nomination or to get him impeached.
I also find it hard to believe that if this revelation is so damaging to Roberts it would not have been used more than once. Remember that Citizens United was decided in 2010. Why wasn't this blackmail used in that instance? And that one example only covers O'Bongo. Certainly if the media had this info they could have either used it or given it to Democrats to use against Roberts in Heller.
-
Certainly good points. Perhaps Occam's Razor dictates that the real answer is simply that Roberts is another statist, big government mandarin of the Beltway political order.
-
I agree the "sympathetic media" angle rings quite hollow, and although I can't account for poor vetting by the Bush folks, team O can easily be scrutinized thusly...
They are as patient as they are ruthless. Whenever they dug up such dirt, by looking at sealed records, which clearly Bush didn't, they saw they could own him. Citizens United is small potatoes. That addressed money going into elections (which may or may not have been successful) for candidates who would support and vote for policy. Obama care is policy. It is direct control of 1/7th to 1/5th of the economy, depending on who ya ask. It is the cornerstone of Socialism and the basis for their buying power.
Heller? The 2d Amendment is attacked on every level anyway. Some jurisdictions will likely never submit, and they know it may come to a fight. I think incrementalism works better for them on that issue.
Are they that patient? To have sat on it for so long? If many reporters had it, some would not have had teh long view to do so, I think. It's possible that, for the narcissist's signature legislation, they pulled out all the stops and didn't have this until it was crunch-time. . They probably dug into every SCOTUS member who may have been wobbly or known to be the type to strike it down. As an aside, I wonder if this is about the time Boehner climbed into O's lap? He's been so compliant I can't help but think they got some dirt on him.
On the flip side, Robert's vote was hailed as a stroke of genius by Thomas Sowell, actually. An aspect I hadn't heard elsewhere. By calling it a tax, a revenue raising bill, it opened the door to more challenges on teh constitutionality b/c all revenue-raising bills must originate in the House, and O-care was a Senate bill!
Of course, G may be right in that Occam usually has the last word.
-
This is the 2nd time in as many days I've seen an accusation or insinuation that there is a story about to bust open that will demonstrate that John Roberts was coerced into his vote for ObamaCare.
The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.
-
This is the 2nd time in as many days I've seen an accusation or insinuation that there is a story about to bust open that will demonstrate that John Roberts was coerced into his vote for ObamaCare.
The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.
If the media knew, they might have kept quiet because they were told to - because having a blackmail-able supreme court judge would ultimately come in handy. Or it could be that the illegal NSA surveillance turned up something only Obama and top Democrats knew. Something very similar happened during the reign of FDR when one judge who was voting against the New Deal suddenly, without warning, and to everyone's detriment, started voting to uphold FDR's crap.
Old tricks are the best ones so they say. However, at this point its moot. And Robert's, blackmailed or no, will hopefully meet the reward of a traitor.
-
The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.
Which is one of the reasons I don't make it a point to tune in to Beck every day (I will almost always tune in Limbaugh, for example). Beck is on my "listen if I have nothing better to do" list because of his penchant for hyperbole. Hannity is on the same list for different reasons. But they both come down to credibility. If Beck and Hannity were dependably credible as spokesmen for conservatives I would listen everyday. The problem is that, while I believe they mean well, they frequently say things which are kind of stupid. Beck is, at least, funny when he's doing it. I like to listen to Levin because his words always seem to be very well considered. He is acerbic but somehow it works.
Anyway...Beck is frequently saying that he is coming out with some blockbuster thingy which is going to finally bring down the Democrats or whatever and it just never delivers. I have no patience for BS like that.
-
This is the 2nd time in as many days I've seen an accusation or insinuation that there is a story about to bust open that will demonstrate that John Roberts was coerced into his vote for ObamaCare.
The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.
No, not about Roberts.
This: (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/13/revolt-among-republicans-on-immigration-bill-70-house-members-risk-careers-in-planned-showdown-with-leadership/)
"Seventy House Republicans are planning a politically risky showdown with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to try to force additional debate on an immigration bill they say will mean amnesty for illegal immigrants and have dire consequences for the country.
The 70 members are petitioning for a special Republican conference meeting on the bill, a “highly unusual” move to go head-to-head with the speaker, according to Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Louie Gohmert (Texas), who are serving as spokespersons for the group.
Bachmann, King and Gohmert told TheBlaze the group is invoking the Hastert Rule: requiring support from a majority of the majority to bring a bill forward.
The petition is expected to go to the House leadership on Friday, but it’s possible some signatories might remove their names due to political risk, or that Boehner could head off the challenge by striking a deal. Going against leadership in such a way could have harsh political consequences for the signatories, including retaliation such as permanently getting passed over for chairmanship positions.
UPDATE: House Speaker John Boehner said** Thursday he doesn’t “intend” to push an immigration bill that violates Republican Party “principles.”"
** ...snort
-
The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.
Which is one of the reasons I don't make it a point to tune in to Beck every day (I will almost always tune in Limbaugh, for example). Beck is on my "listen if I have nothing better to do" list because of his penchant for hyperbole. Hannity is on the same list for different reasons. But they both come down to credibility. If Beck and Hannity were dependably credible as spokesmen for conservatives I would listen everyday. The problem is that, while I believe they mean well, they frequently say things which are kind of stupid. Beck is, at least, funny when he's doing it. I like to listen to Levin because his words always seem to be very well considered. He is acerbic but somehow it works.
Anyway...Beck is frequently saying that he is coming out with some blockbuster thingy which is going to finally bring down the Democrats or whatever and it just never delivers. I have no patience for BS like that.
Ditto. If he wouldn't oversell what is often a nothing-burger, he'd have more credibility.
On the other hand, as to Levin, he's promised to put something out (in August, I think) on which he's been working; a strategy for fighting "them".
-
I think somebody got to Roberts on the DumbassCare vote, not sure the adoption thing rises to that level, but something really fishy surrounded that flip a year ago.
As for fighting...yeah, whatever...if people in office cannot man-up against this POSOTUS and his dozens of high crimes...well, strategy shmrategy! ::)
-
As for the purported "risk" to the 70 Republicans who are planning to challenge leadership, what risk? They're already being denied committee assignments by the Weeping Carrot.
Boehner is as much a problem as any of the Democrats. When the 113th Congress voted to keep him as Speaker, oh, why even go into it...
-
As for the purported "risk" to the 70 Republicans who are planning to challenge leadership, what risk? They're already being denied committee assignments by the Weeping Carrot.
Boehner is as much a problem as any of the Democrats. When the 113th Congress voted to keep him as Speaker, oh, why even go into it...
Agreed. It is PAST time for Boehner to GO, he should never have been re-elected. That left us suspicious of a majority of our own party's representatives, even to the point that some would vote against them ALL. I have some small hope left, but, I admit it is less and less each day.
-
Gohmert was on Beck this AM and he called John Boehner "Tammy Faye Boehner".
I think I smell rebellion in the GOP.
-
There needs to be a 3d party. Who cares about mealy-mouthed, nit-witted useful idiots whining about "a vote for 3d parties is a vote for democrats" bullsh*t.
R's these days remind me of someone holding our arms held while someone else keeps punching us in the face.
-
He should have nightmares, he should walk the halls and weep, shame
them all who are participating in corrupting this great America.
I'll not ask God to have mercy on their souls.
-
There needs to be a 3d party. Who cares about mealy-mouthed, nit-witted useful idiots whining about "a vote for 3d parties is a vote for democrats" bullsh*t.
R's these days remind me of someone holding our arms held while someone else keeps punching us in the face.
I disagree. We do not need a THIRD party. What we need is a viable SECOND party. The GOP perhaps MAY not be it. If it is not, let it be a conservative, constitutional party, and let the middles, choose this day whom you will serve. For me this is an easy choice. Always knowing what best serves is more difficult, but I will easily choose the constitution. We have only devolved since then.
-
On the other hand, as to Levin, he's promised to put something out (in August, I think) on which he's been working; a strategy for fighting "them".
I believe that is a reference to a new book.
-
Gohmert was on Beck this AM and he called John Boehner "Tammy Faye Boehner".
I think I smell rebellion in the GOP.
Yeah, I happened to have that on at the time he said that. If that is being tossed around that casually it's kind of a bad sign for the Speaker. It means that, at the very least, he isn't even being shown the courtesy of respect in public by some in his party. It means that he isn't feared and respect and fear should go hand in hand.
-
There needs to be a 3d party. Who cares about mealy-mouthed, nit-witted useful idiots whining about "a vote for 3d parties is a vote for democrats" bullsh*t.
R's these days remind me of someone holding our arms held while someone else keeps punching us in the face.
I disagree. We do not need a THIRD party. What we need is a viable SECOND party. The GOP perhaps MAY not be it. If it is not, let it be a conservative, constitutional party, and let the middles, choose this day whom you will serve. For me this is an easy choice. Always knowing what best serves is more difficult, but I will easily choose the constitution. We have only devolved since then.
The more parties the better IMO. With two parties all you have to do is be slightly less treasonous than the other party. It is always a choice between two evils, because being slighlty less evil is all you have to be in order to be viable. The more factions, the more change that nothing will get done, and quite frankly, the govt doing nothing is often the best option.
-
[blockquote]
"The more parties the better IMO. With two parties all you have to do is be slightly less treasonous than the other party. It is always a choice between two evils, because being slighlty less evil is all you have to be in order to be viable. The more factions, the more change that nothing will get done, and quite frankly, the govt doing nothing is often the best option."[/blockquote]
Hear, hear. We've tried working with the Republicans to the limit. What about that freak Rubio?
How much Tea Party money and effort go to him? And the rest of them. I'm there.
F R A C T U R E _T H E _P A R T Y
Actually, let's have alternative democrats, libertarians, republicans.
Let's fracture all the parties!!!!
-
The GOP can't be fixed, so it must be replaced. It won't be replaced until a party challenges it and wins. So by default, the only way to have an effective 2nd party is for there to first be three.
-
The GOP can't be fixed, so it must be replaced. It won't be replaced until a party challenges it and wins. So by default, the only way to have an effective 2nd party is for there to first be three.
I tried the Constitution Party last time. That didn't work out so well.
Any ideas?
-
Nope... except that my gut tells me it's all academic anyway.
-
Liberals may hate each other but they never stray far from the pack. Very few of them ever jump ship. And even when they do it's mostly for show. The most any of them ever do is have temper tantrums. They always come back to the fold.
I wouldn't count on the left dividing like the right is poised to do. It ain't gonna happen. If we can't take control of the Republican party we will be consigned to the wilderness. The best I can hope for is that the left sill so engorge themselves that they explode from their own excesses.
No matter what happens it's gonna be nasty to have to clean up...
-
Liberals may hate each other but they never stray far from the pack. Very few of them ever jump ship. And even when they do it's mostly for show. The most any of them ever do is have temper tantrums. They always come back to the fold.
I wouldn't count on the left dividing like the right is poised to do. It ain't gonna happen. If we can't take control of the Republican party we will be consigned to the wilderness. The best I can hope for is that the left sill so engorge themselves that they explode from their own excesses.
No matter what happens it's gonna be nasty to have to clean up...
The left won't and can't divide. They are tribal in nature, and their identities are consumed by the tribe. They are no Different than the Germans who believed themselves to be of superior Ayrian stock and therefore excused any and all of the atrocities of the third Reich as being ultimately for the "common good" ( of Ayrians anyway)
By not voting GOP we will fracture and kill the Republican party, and the Dems will become more emboldened. If we vote Republican, the Dems still do the same, and we get the kabuki theater of sociopathic liars pretending to be on our side and pretending to oppose the libs. Rubio is an excellent case in point. They will lie, cheat and steal till the Dems control everything. And then the system will implode as sure as Detroit.
In short, IDP is right. The point is Moot. Don't vote GOP- make sure as much blame as possible rests on the shoulders of the Dems and their F'd up ideology and hunker down. A Civil war it pretty much now inevitable. The libs won't back off. They cheated in the last election to the point where your were seeing MORE THAN 100% of the vote for Obama in some places, and will do it again in the next election. The IS no political solution. The old republic is dead. Who you vote for in the tawdry attempts to give the new regime legitimacy is irrelevant - voting is irrelevant, because they will get the result they want regardless, and make it known that is the case. We either fight them at our doors, our we accept the death of individual freedom and the last best hope for humanity. We may , of course loose, but I can't say I really wish to survive into the hell the Democrats will create. It will be worse than the USSR, and even as their chains are set upon them, the libs will scream "Its Bush's fault"
-
I just thought I'd share an analysis I saw at the FReepers. I offer it up for comment and don't (necessarily) endorse it...
I keep trying to explain. The Obamacare decision was not about Roberts. It was about Kennedy. He is a reliable liberal vote when it really matters, but he will only do so when he is the *deciding* vote. The man is bizarre. He wants to be in the legal books as the deciding vote.
He *wanted* Roberts to vote against Obamacare, so he, Kennedy, would be in the law books forever. And it would have been Obamacare with all the bells and whistles. The liberals and Kennedy would make it a 5-4 decision, and there was nothing Roberts could do to stop it.
When Roberts outmaneuvered him to vote *for* Obamacare, Kennedy was livid. But make no mistake, Obamacare was going to pass, one way or another. No matter what happened.
But why did Roberts do this? Because of the one thing that makes the Chief Justice different from the other justices. When he is with the majority, he can decide *who* writes the majority decision.
And he chose himself to write that decision. However, he could not have totally nuked Obamacare when he did so, or the liberal justices would have refused to sign on, and written their own decision.
So instead he subtly inserted two “poison pills” into the decision. And both really, truly matter.
The first was that he said that the Obamacare mandate was not a regular law, but a *tax*. Why? Because Democrats have long used the filibuster trick to prevent Republicans from overturning the Democrats big government schemes. So unless the Republicans literally had 2/3rds of BOTH houses of congress, they could not overturn Obamacare.
But tax law is different. You cannot filibuster changes to tax law. It just takes a simple majority, 51% of both houses, to make changes. This means the next time the Republicans control the house, senate and presidency, they can KILL OBAMACARE DEAD! Just bare majorities, and the Democrats cannot block them from doing it.
The other poison pill we are seeing right now. The fight at the state level about expanding Medicaid or not.
But why does that matter? Because in his decision, Roberts wrote that, while the federal government may mandate state programs, it has to pay for them. That is, the Democrats wanted Obamacare to be a continual drain on the states, that every time the Democrats voted to expand Obamacare, that expansion would have to be paid for by the states.
“I want to give my girlfriend a fur coat, and make you pay for it.”
And this poison pill actually matter *more* in the long run, because the Democrats have used this trick for years. The states bitterly complained about it, calling it “unfunded mandates”.
And Roberts decision in Obamacare opens the door to states suing the federal government to end 70 or more years of federal expansions of mandated programs. This isn’t just Obamacare, or LBJ’s Great Society welfare state, this hits them going back to FDR’s New Deal.
I’m not even sure the other conservative justices even (at least publicly) realized what Roberts had done at the time.
But Roberts really set into motion some huge changes in the future, and the Democrats will not like it one bit.
45 posted on Monday, June 10, 2013 1:19:22 PM by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
-
Too ::cussing:: nuanced for me, and more importantly, too nuanced for the constitution. If Roberts wants to go down in history as the Dread Chief Justice Roberts and wear the traitors collar, so be it.
-
That's interesting, Soup. If that's the case, I wonder how long it'll take the interested parties to figger' it out.
Seems to be along the lines (of nuance and subtlety) of what i mentioned re: Sowell saying that it's a tax, meaing only the House can raise funds that way, and sisnce it's a Senate bill, it's un-Constitutional, but I think this take you present has more meat to it, but it may take longer to chew.
-
So if this Supreme Court ruling was supposedly a sly way of opening it up to challenge on the basis that tax legislation must originate in the House, WTF hasn't it been challenged on that point?
I'm tired of nuance. Too often it's just a euphemism for "being self-serving and unprincipled". To borrow a phrase from Reagan, I want bold colors and broad brushstrokes. Red meat. A lot of pundits and pols ostensibly on our side seem to forget the importance of emotion in the Culture War. You have to animate people, and that in turn creates a social meme that will ultimately bear more fruit than dry technicalities.
-
"I'm tired of nuance. Too often it's just a euphemism for 'being self-serving and unprincipled'."
My brother! ::thumbsup::
Dread Chief Roberts, the feckless Pubbies...all made their bed...if they burst into flames all they can expect from me is gasoline.
-
We don't have the luxury of time to allow the chess match scenario above to play out. The whole thing will crash and burn before those supposed "poison pills" can accomplish their mission.
-
We don't have the luxury of time to allow the chess match scenario above to play out. The whole thing will crash and burn before those supposed "poison pills" can accomplish their mission.
Exactly. As I have said many times, they are stuck in this mentality that it's all a big gentlemanly parlor game. Oneupmanship. Ahhh, good show old chap! You got us good on that one! See you at the club for brunch and bloody marys this Sunday?
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/20/bush-era-nsa-whistleblower-makes-most-explosive-allegations-yet-about-true-extent-of-govt-surveillance/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/20/bush-era-nsa-whistleblower-makes-most-explosive-allegations-yet-about-true-extent-of-govt-surveillance/)
Kinda makes you wonder...doesn't it?
Time has run out, people must start thinking past politics and they should have started thinking this years ago.
-
I think you're gonna find that the Bush-era allegations will turn out to be complete bullspit.
-
No doubt, more disinformation feeding the Obama "It's Bush's falt!" meme the Leftists keep stuffing in the public's mouth like its a universal pacifier.
-
I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that previous administrations have been collecting available information on American citizens for quite some time.
Bush kicked the door open for a lot of what we are seeing today from Obama. The idea that his administration was involved in surveillance and data-mining of American citizens would not be far-fetched. I would need evidence.
-
I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that previous administrations have been collecting available information on American citizens for quite some time.
Bush kicked the door open for a lot of what we are seeing today from Obama. The idea that his administration was involved in surveillance and data-mining of American citizens would not be far-fetched. I would need evidence.
Didn't Clintoon have something, a program? Echelon? I'd not be in the least surprised to know he and Her Thighness were behind widespread data collection.
As for Bush, really, I wouldn't doubt it, but I personally don't care: "what difference, at this point, does it make?" It's happening now and has been for some time and here's where we are.
-
I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that previous administrations have been collecting available information on American citizens for quite some time.
Bush kicked the door open for a lot of what we are seeing today from Obama. The idea that his administration was involved in surveillance and data-mining of American citizens would not be far-fetched. I would need evidence.
Didn't Clintoon have something, a program? Echelon? I'd not be in the least surprised to know he and Her Thighness were behind widespread data collection.
As for Bush, really, I wouldn't doubt it, but I personally don't care: "what difference, at this point, does it make?" It's happening now and has been for some time and here's where we are.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed by Clinton (and of course, passed by a GOP House). It mandated among other things that mobile phones be GPS capable and with an ability to track them. Alex Jones has been referring to this act including appropriations for NSA spying programs for quite some time now. I found several articles on Infowars from 2011 about it. I feel like I owe an apology to people I used to dismiss as conspiracy goons. Hell, even the quintessential "black helicopter" ones have been proved right.
http://www.infowars.com/investigation-government-ordered-cellphone-companies-to-spy-on-users/ (http://www.infowars.com/investigation-government-ordered-cellphone-companies-to-spy-on-users/)
http://www.infowars.com/nsa-admits-it-tracks-americans-via-cell-phones/ (http://www.infowars.com/nsa-admits-it-tracks-americans-via-cell-phones/)
-
W was busy, especially in the aftermath of 9/11 - http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/index.html (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/index.html)
But the foundation was laid a long time ago and the modern apparatus came into being with the 1947 National Security Act. At that time the FBI was responsible for domestic intelligence and counterintelligence, but the CIA could obtain FBI info upon written request.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/int022.html (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/int022.html)
In 1978 FISA came into being, ironically under Carter, and what was once meant as a check to guard civil liberties has morphed into a blank check under succeeding legislation and executive orders.
ECHELON was initiated a long time ago and was intended for foreign surveillance, but once the NSA was able to demonstrate its prowess and with advancing technology it is little surprise their ability on a global scale (including our own nation) was going to do anything but expand. With GPS and backdoors and compliant private industry personal cilivl liberties were doomed to become extinct.
Take it away now and the PTBs will ask "What do you have to hide?" when the real questions should go the other direction the way the Founders intended "Why do you need private information on every living soul?!