What the government is doing is a true representation of what they think of us. WE THE PEOPLE are the enemy of the state.

Despite being an FDR Democrat, I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the way in which President Obama is not only recapitulating the anti-democratic policies of the Neo-Conservative Bush Administration, but seems to be escalating them....

finally something goes the right way for the Bill of Rights.... but it's still a shadow of what it was on 9/10/01....

and I agree with these other guys.... a lot of the things Bush was doing are being done even more aggressively by Obama... drones, searches, secrecy, erosion of rights.... its all gotten worse...

Seems every corner of this administration is H***Bent on violating the Constitution.

Next, it will be to outlaw your religious preference.....wait a minute.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, it is Bush's Fault.

This secrecy business is just out of control. Bin Laden attacks the country and the U.S. citizens become the suspects. The FBI goes to google, twitter, verizon and just demands your information. This was done to people who protested in the Occupy movement--protest is legal and protected in this country. It is a cherished right. To fear that you'll be surveilled as a result of protesting has a chilling effect so that people are afraid to open their mouths.

This isn't new. Hoover and COINTELPRO did the same thing in the 60s--they harassed Martin Luther King among many others.

People need to feel that they have some level of privacy and that they aren't going to be tormented by Security Zealots. And the govt needs to recognize that they can't run a secret operation and still claim to be a democracy.

moshuluu

In response. Why don't you drop the partisan bull@!$%# and accept that this is a wrong that needs to be righted. Yes, it did start with Bush, but you can hardly argue that it hasn't been maintained and increased with this administration. Be an American instead of a partisan for once and do right, for rights sake. WE are not the enemy, and I am sick of my government treating us like we are. I don't give a flying @!$%# who is in the White House, this @!$%# is wrong.

The stuff that is going to be found is going to be tough on this adminsitration. A lot of his supporters are going to be crushed and I expect at some point the "I-Word" (Impeachment) will come up from his own party.

Obama has increased and expanded NSA and drone strikes, I wished he would use this to warn business about the illegals they hire .

got to go a black helicopter is buzzing my neighborhooooooooooooooooooooo

It is critical that we Americans hold our government accountable for the power it is given, by US to act on our behalf, And that we remind it of that TRUST frequently. Or we will find ourselves locked up, with it throwing away the very keys to our Freedoms and Rights.

One thing we need to remember, is that the government already has been using it's extensive powers and weight to access information from different areas of our lives on countless numbers of folks, who have never been considered, nor could be terrorists to begin with.But then we aren't the government.

That is the legacy of the Patriot Act. Which has moved ever deeper into our daily lives.Besides it telling Internet Service Providers NOT to indicate to customers they have shared your personal information.As a special report covered last fall, our government's wide spread abusive behaviors are tolerated, because people give up their rights in exchange for the promise of security. It also found another disturbing trend.That U.S. citizens are scanned constantly in different scenarios under many layers of huge umbrellas.Seeking the nasty bad guys who would destroy us all. Yet we the innocent, more and more are under the constant suspicious microscope it appear.What, you say, you have done nothing wrong, so, you have nothing to fear.Right, history is filled with such folks who had the same attitude.Since when have only the guilty ever suffered, been caught, made the victims of an unjust persecution of governments.

Such as what people were checking out at libraries, scanning social media sites for hundreds of key trigger words, or when law enforcement is dealing with public, using computers linked to quick sources for national data information. In addition to criminal cases of missing persons, kidnapping, child abuse, homicide, gun compliance/issues,drugs, felonies charges, and car accidents. One doesn't even have to be the criminal either. For victims names have also been quite routinely put through the Homeland Security cleaners looking for suspects. Under the premise a terrorist could be caught this way by chance. With specific instructions given NOT to indicate on reports such a specific check has been made.As if this weren't enough, the search moved to the Internet some time ago.

Back in March of last year, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act was passed in Congress. This bill allowed companies to take all forms of your electronic communications, emails, text, etc, and copy it, then share it with its partners, modify it, or simply refuse to even send it, if it is determined to not be in that company's or one of its partners best interest. And it can apply that to third party's as well. All without notifying the sender.

So, if Google decided little Joe's Communication Networking Business, a new company, was a threat to a huge business partner to Google, Poof! He is gone. Or, messages he sends, aren't quite getting through the way he wants. He must find another provider.Lucky for us, that bill died in the Senate. But after the recent cyber attacks, it is coming back and being looked at again right now.

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

This is just the same old crap that J Edgar Hoover engaged in, using the FBI as his personal internal spy service. The same people who came up through the ranks of the FBI when he was collecting secret files on people like Martin Luther King, John Kennedy, and Daniel Ellsberg are running it now. They are continuing to do the same thing.

This is the American version of the KGB, and anybody who blows the whistle is severely punished. The Patriot Act just gave them more justification and leeway for secretly spying on U. S. citizens. Of course they claim it's necessary to protect the country, so did Stalin and the KGB.

Truth Conveyer

That is interesting. Can a President be impeached, for using powers that Congress freely gave, by a Congress that had no right to allow Constitutionally in the first place? I doubt it.

"oldhamletman

finally something goes the right way for the Bill of Rights.... but it's still a shadow of what it was on 9/10/01....

and I agree with these other guys.... a lot of the things Bush was doing are being done even more aggressively by Obama... drones, searches, secrecy, erosion of rights.... its all gotten worse..."

That's because BOTH parties are in on "it" BOTH are working towards some unknown, to us, objective.

They are preparing for the civil backlash from whatever it is. They are making laws to through us in jail without charges and can leave us there forever just by claiming we're a terrorist. Make no mistake someday some schmuck at Home Land Security" Will ask the "State Department" if its legal to use it on American Citizens and if you look up the word " terrorist" you can see that they could easily say. "oh yeah no problem". if the political system was to suddenly change here.

And BOTH ARE WORKING TOWARDS THIS.Let me say that again BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH

Once ours, and the Worlds, Fiat money/currency system fails (and every fiat system in history has) all hell is going to break loose and there will be BIG changes and I predict lots of fighting, shooting, people disappearing in the middle of the night etc etc. If you take a good look at how our money system works and how the Fed is a really really BAD thing I think its pretty obvious that that time is near.

I'm also certain the people in "power" know it and the people that pull the strings at Central Banks around the world know it, as it will be them that puts the whole thing into motion, when ever they please.

Now I may be wrong or just crazy but something, my friends, is in the air and it doesn't smell good.

Well that's my paranoid rant now back to your normal programing.

George Bush sucked, no Obama sucks, Mitt Romney sucks, Sara Palin is stupid and sucks blah blah blah

Divided we fall.

Hummmmm ... Better late than never ..... (of course the government will appeal) ... at least a good first step by the courts .... lets see where this goes ....

so much damage has been done .... this may be too little to late ..

Farewell to "The Rights of Man"

John,

How do we know he only used the powers that are legal? That will be coming out in the wash.

Truth Conveyer

We will see, but with all the powers Congress has given away, the legal wrangling could go on for years and do no good. And who really knows how many spins they can put on the Patriot Act and NDAA which are huge. It is kind of like ACA which had to be passed in order to find out what was in it.

In reality, if bounds were overstepped I see Congress's only authority is to cancel Executive authority that they gave through a supermajority that would override a veto. And with this Congress? I don't see that happening unless some major travesty occurred. I don't think Congress could impeach a President in this instance without having to impeach itself. Although I do believe the Supreme court might have the ability to impeach both for impropriety, but I would have to look it up.

I doubt it would ever come to any of that, because this will be buried, and the public will forget. After all, we are just the stupid enemy of the state now.

What's wrong with what they were doing? It makes everyone feel safer, right? Like the so-called security measures performed by the TSA right? Like everything that the government does to keep tabs on it's own citizens in the name of counter terrorism, right? I mean, gosh they're the government. They wouldn't do anything that was illegal or immoral or unconstitutional, right? Even if they did we are all sure that it is for our own good, right?

If you want bacon you don't go on a deer hunt.

Truth....John had a valid point I think, about what a Congress did for Bush/Cheney being wrong. The unconstitutional laws are still in place for Obama to use...and he certainly is using them. Is it unlawful for Obama to use unlawful laws passed by Congress although they haven't been ruled unconstitutional yet? I believe this is some of what The Founders had in mind when they discussed dealing with tyrannical governments and the course of action to take if their ideas were being corrupted. Militias and all the other unpleasant issues they had to deal with back in the 1700's are still relevant today.

The security vs. liberty issues are still as important as ever and need to come to the forefront in the Courts to deal with it before it becomes any larger or strays any further from it's historical path. The Courts owe the people a clear sense of how they see current events as it pertains to The Founders ideas of a Republic for and by the People.

I feel somewhat encouraged that it looks like we the people from all sides of the political spectrum can agree this is getting out of control quickly and we need to preserve our citizen rights.

Party lines are killing freedom!

Soon China will be the boss of us, and if they want us to enforce our rights to their benefit who is wrong. That China communications company and many DNS codes are in their control. Give'm free rein in our country by protecting them under the bill of rights. After all, we do owe them a lot of money.

I think we are foolish to think that if the government wanted to see your personal information they couldn't. I am sure that if the NSA REALLY wanted to know about me, they have all the tools and enough moral ambiguity to do so. The really scary point of this is the brazen attempts to make these privacy intrusions mainstream and accepted as well as what seems to be increased efforts to push the envelopes of civil liberties. This is just flat out not the country I was led to believe we lived in.

Know what you guys you all are wrong on how long the government has been listening or reading our stuff. I told you about it some time back but you all called me a troll and worse. I even gave you a link to check it out and I doubt any of you even looked at it. Believe or not the US isn't the only government doing it. So go ahead and keep your heads where they are because you all can't seem to get out of the box and see the big picture. By the way Bush has been out of office over 4 years don't you think it is time to put the blame where it belongs now.

Careful, people, I'm sure ol' Uncle Sam is reading everything WE'RE writing. To take arms against the government is not a good thing - we all need to be a little more educated before we vote anybody in. If Obama gets his way, and he gets a Democratically controlled House, as well as a Senate, then we're ALL in trouble! Voting does work, if we talk to our neighbors, friends, relatives, and anybody else who will listen. I know, we're not supposed to talk politics or religion - who do you think made up THAT rule? I still think Obama got back in office by crooked means. He was just too smug before the elections that he would win (remember the conversation he had with the Russian ambassador, when he thought the cameras were off?). And, Florida has discovered forged voting applications or something. How many might there be outside of Florida? Maybe we need to start impeachment proceedings. Now.

It is time the Patriot Acts I & II be brought to the people for a vote to be tossed out. If this cannot be accomplished then both Acts must be reviewed by SCOTUS for conforming to the Constitution. If they do not then they must be thrown out and if some Act is needed it must be vetted by the SCOTUS and not some idiot US Attorney General on a personal vendetta or a paranoid delusional staffer. These Acts have left us without a working Constitution and it must be the law of the land. Without who are we as a country and a republic democracy? Are we any better than those countries we are destroying in the name of democracy and villains?

What could have possibly compelled the entire congress and the Senate to overwhelmingly go along with the illegal Patriot Act? It passed with an overwhelming majority! ! ! This has never happened before in U.S. history. What were the congressmen threatened with behind the scenes to FORCE them to comply with this BS Patriot Act?

Now lets jump forward to today, we the people still have guns and are buying more along with all the ammunition we can stack in our closets, base boards and jeeps. We the people are stocking up on dry non perishable foods. We the people are Joining U.S. Militias everwhere. We the people are sick and tired of it and we are very close to doing something about it just as we did over 200 years ago but its ok, its been a long time coming. The Militias are forming what is called the 2nd U.S. Continental Congress which is meant to run the country during and after the coming U.S. full scale revolution and the combined militias are it's military along with more than half of all U.S. military personel currently in uniform which will secretly provide We The People with all counter-aggressive weapons that will be needed along with all intel reports that will be used against us. The ENTIRE U.S. military population has already stated that they will join the militias this is why the U.S. intel groups have "arranged" mass shootings across the U.S. so as to alarm the public about "needed"' gun control. The Feds are real afraid of the militias, afraid of its own military and are starting to suspect each other as possible intel leaks. They get our guns and its all over before it begins. Sorry, our guns are going nowhere except to be directed at the ones who Thomas Jefferson suggested they be directed at when a government is no longer for its people. There is a secret call to arms which is why the militias are growing at light speed and the feds know this and are becoming alarmed. As well they should be!

The U.S. Government IS NOT YOUR AUTHORITY and thus the Patriot Act can be ignored! Will be IGNORED! Only the PERCEPTION of authority is authority. Simply remove your perception of THEIR authority and they no longer have Authority. When they come to shoot you, shoot them, not in self defense but in counter aggression. When they come to spy on you, SPY ON THEM and let them know it. When they come to arrest you for not following their illegal laws and acts, CALL YOUR LOCAL MILITIA for REAL protection! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

So know this people, they are starting to become more afraid of We The People than the people are of them and its only because of our guns, our discust with them and our final decision to challenge them on ALL grounds. Support your local militias by joining one and keep the people FREE> F R E E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

P.S. All TSA agents wear pink panties.

We need WikiLeaks andor a real investigative press to bring out all these "secrets".

Our current press is a for-profit corporate press which goes for the flashy stuff that brings in advertising dollars and amuses those for whom news is about today's scandal and no further.

To actually relate one piece of news with another and discover that something really big and important is happening is missing from today's copy readers and today's selective fact generators.

Sometimes you can see it happening and nobody -- nobody catches it and nobody reports it. What a shame. What the public is missing. What really bad conclusions are being arrived at by our government people. And nobody seems to care.

Does anybody else hear a coo coo clock?

A federal judge on Friday struck down gag orders imposed on companies that receive national security letters — the supersecret mechanism by which the FBI can get your private information without a warrant in the name of counterterrorism.

Good. Score one for the little guy, the average Joe, for a change. I know it's a small victory, and largely symbolic, but it's great to see big brother brought down a couple of notches. Getting too damn big for his britches.

Terrorism has won. It has taken the individual rights and freedom from American citizens. It has changed the core principles of our nation. We are a different country now.

Vonbraun said:

What could have possibly compelled the entire congress and the Senate to overwhelmingly go along with the illegal Patriot Act? It passed with an overwhelming majority! ! ! This has never happened before in U.S. history. What were the congressmen threatened with behind the scenes to FORCE them to comply with this BS Patriot Act?

Who said they needed to be 'forced'? Just pay them off.

All of this was put in place after 9/11, so you really can't blame it all on President Obama. Bush created a new Department of the US government called Homeland Security and gave it a budget of $49 million dollars to carry out counter-terrorism activities.

Ten years later Homeland Security has managed to be come a multi-disciplinary department with fingers in almost all aspects of our daily lives and governmental proceedings. Not only did they have a 2012 operating budget of $98 billion , they've also managed to absorb a lot of different departments of the government dealing with both external and internal affairs. CBP, ICE, USCIS, the Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA...the list goes on.

And they didn't have to 'force' anyone into giving them that power; the American people clamored for more security, and we got it. We asked the government to deport all illegals; Homeland Security asks Congress for $141 per person per day to detain and deport an illegal; private prisons get $100 out of every $141, and Homeland Security keeps the rest. Then the private for-profit prisons/deportation camps pour money into lobbyists, who wine and dine politicians and get them to pass ever more and more restrictive laws giving Homeland Security more and more money (and thus more and more power.) Janet Napolitano, the Head of Homeland Security, is being called by Forbes the 9th most powerful woman in the world.

Today you can't go a single day without hearing about one of Homeland Security's component divisions on the news. Practically all government computers have keystroke logging software installed on it that quietly compiles information on the user's computer activity and forwards that to Homeland Security's Cyber Security branch. In case you haven't noticed, on new DVD releases of the latest movies, the anti-piracy warning now not only has the FBI logo on it, but it also has Homeland Security's logo on it too. ICE raided a flea market in my neighborhood and yanked a truckload of fake Guccis and fake Nikes and Trayvon Martin tshirts. Homeland Security now owns the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of Legislative Policy, and the National Communications Center (the media.)

Speaker of the House John Boehner asked President Obama in late 2011 if his Homeland Security Oversight Committee could have sole oversight of the Homeland Security juggernaut. President Obama denied that request--and rightly so; with such a large chunk of our government tied up in Homeland Security, giving 33 members of Congress complete and sole oversight of DHS's budget, policies, laws, operations and accountability violates the principles our country is founded on--having only a few individuals holding so much governmental power violates our Founding Fathers' intentions when they set up the governing system of our country.

Oh, and for those who feel that President Obama is responsible--let me remind you that the Secret Service is no longer a branch of the Treasury, but of Homeland Security. How willing would you be to go against something Homeland Security wants knowing that they are the ones responsible for your wife and children's safety?

VonBraun is refusing to drink his koolaid again sir.

I say it was the peoples fault. Every time there is an terrorist attack, the people screem for the Government to do something. Of course they do. People complained about the hi cost of medical insurance, so Obamacare was invented, now everyone get to pay higher costs with less coverage. People complained the Rich didn't pay thier fair share, so they not only raised the tax rates on the rich, but rasied taxes on eveyone else too. Who said "never let a crisis go to waist" The people are to blaim for this, we put these "people" in office, without really checking them out. but because they belong to my party they can do no wrong. The SCOUS is so backed up with cases they don't have the time to question every thing the president does, as well as the Congress.

It was all started more then a century ago. But each president and group has continued to expand on the previous groups use these abilities to spy on the public. Now the ability to bomb them as well.

That's because BOTH parties are in on "it" BOTH are working towards some unknown, to us, objective.

There's no big plot here. The parties are doing exactly what the public demanded of them after 9/11. People demanded action. They had no patience for niceties like committee hearings and op-ed articles and all those other things that help our citizens become informed about legislation.

People can blame politicians, big companies, big money, etc..., but the sad truth is that we get the government that we elect. In primaries, we tend to vote for the incumbent because we're lazy. In general elections, we vote party lines. So, in reality, nothing changes.

We, the people, are responsible for this mess.

What were the congressmen threatened with behind the scenes to FORCE them to comply with this BS Patriot Act?

I can answer that. They were threatened with being terrorist appeasers. Everyone that did not give Bush and Cheney what they asked for were accused by the radical right wing Republicans as being unpatriotic, un-American, and terrorist appeasers if they even voiced a concern about bills before congress supposedly to fight terrorism in America and abroad.

Some of you are making accusations that Obama has escalated this intrusion of our rights but do any of you have the faintest idea how much of this was going on just after the Patriot Act was passed? My bet would be that every man woman and child was checked out as possible terrorist after 9/11. Many of you are assuming that because Obama is president that they were all American citizens where actually you really have no idea whether any of the 16,511 NSLs sent in 2011 were concerning an American citizen but rather some of the millions of legal/illegal immigrants in this country.

john-737278, #1.16- Here's the thing..."We're already buried.....we've been buried for a long time now.....it's impossible to forget because we've BEEN BURIED ALIVE!" This is another "tipping point" opportunity in perspective. CONGRESS has buried us alive and that's where we need to start digging ourselves out. Shovel ready? The fist shovel-full needing to be taken is in CONGRESS, when "Ethics" is no longer a matter of In-House self-enforcement and became a "Matter of Law" by Undue Influence of the Fiduciary....a.k.a....."Breach" of the Fiduciary, I think. As far as "Impeachment" goes, I think that's the first "spoonful" of dirt, as opposed to "shovel-full" that needs to be removed in many States, by the "Impeachment" of certain Governors.

More later. I'm in the middle of something else right now and have to go look something up before continuing here, as soon as I get a chance. (BURIED ALIVE!!!) Good to be exchanging thoughts with you, again. This is a really great thread so far.

We, the people, are responsible for this mess.

Absolutely and we, the people, also forget that there are hackers that get our personal information illegally. We, the people, should be thankful that the Constitution is still in place and the courts still rule based on it.

the Constitution,( what is left of it) is a limit on government, Government wants no limits, Government does not like the Constitution, all Governments seek absoulute power, Governments do not trust the people they rule.

Mystery Rhee

I agree. Any resolution needs to start with over-sight of Congress. As I see it they have given power to the Executive that NO President should have. These gag letters were started back in the eighties but the Patriot Act gave them teeth where instead of simply a gag order, the information gained can be used against those concerned without due process or warrant. And they have had eleven years of free reign to fill their vaults with info.

I think any solution needs to start with changes in the Judicial branch of government. It should not have to take eleven years for cases like this to come to light. In my opinion the SCOTUS should have to review all laws passed before they are enacted to determine Constitutionality. That is the only way wrongs can be righted before it affects the population. It is the only way that true checks and balances in over-reach of the other two branches can actually have teeth. The SCOTUS does have this right under "original jurisdiction" and can choose to judge all laws passed by Congress and the President before they take effect. I think it is about time the SCOTUS was as proactive as the other branches in protecting us from them.

the Constitution,( what is left of it) is a limit on government, Government wants no limits, Government does not like the Constitution, all Governments seek absoulute power, Governments do not trust the people they rule.

This may be true, but the SCOTUS will and has always kept the Constitution alive. It is the law of the land.

Court orders are useless..

The government has been violating people's rights everyday with their surveillance set up inside the houses of We The People. Beware of Pig Brother...I mean...big brother. Sorry, in the eyes of Pigotry, everybody is a pig.

Wow! How uninformed everyone seems. Take one look at the Espionage and Sedition Acts, of the early 20th century, to get a clue about how far the government has REALLY gone in removing your rights!

Both parties are responsible for the degradation of our liberties & Constitutional protections ...

They all give lip service & then it's nothing but "All ......Shuck & Jive" ....

Of ALL of the judges in America, only 1 (ONE) has stood up for the Constitutional rights of the U.S. citizen. Other than this judge, all judges are corrupt. They proclaim in court that "It's all about the money." (not justice). As one of my law professors once described the reason behind a legal system: "Our legal system is based on convenience, not justice." he explained that a legal system (good or bad) is needed to keep the people from getting out of CONTROL and settling disputes on their own. This keeps the lawyers employed and rich, as they always win. They get paid by both sides of any disagreement. They write the laws for their own job security and wealth. "this is a nation of laws."

Honest, impartial, nonpolitical, compassionate judges are our only salvation. Sadly, there is only one: SUSAN ILLSTON--THANK YOU!

Government does not like the Constitution, all Governments seek absoulute power, ...

Exactly, and after 9/11, Congress couldn't act fast enough to hand over yet more power to the Executive. Why? Because if they didn't, they'd be pilloried by most Americans as being soft on terrorism. It is pointless to blame Obama for continuing to use the powers that he inherited. No president will voluntarily give up any powers. Do you think that if McCain had won in 2008 or Romney last year, that either would have told Congress "no, no ... I don't need that authority. Please let it expire."? Of course not.

Barry-NJ

Actually, if they are what we expect and believe them to be when elected, yes they should deny it. Every single one of their oaths is to uphold the Constitution. Not some grey hypothetical. Morally, they should stop it, but don't, and we as citizens have absolutely no recourse that takes less than a decade. And voting them out only changes the players, not the game. We sure as hell expect our military to take their oaths seriously or face court-martial. Why should we expect less of those above them? Or those in Congress?

That is why I think the SCOTUS needs to take a more proactive role. They should have ruled on the Patriot Act and NDAA before they went into effect. And the signing statement that was given at the signing of NDAA should have raised a huge red flag for the Supremes.

Totally screwed

john-737278, #1.42- Thank you so much for whatever the amount of "agreement" is. Wow! You're post is heading off into a slightly different direction than I was coming back to continue my post from, but I definately want to find another opportunity after this to also address that.

I don't know if you've followed the "Zumba" case at all, but I have, and it's led me to be regularly checking in with a Maine Newspaper, the Portland Press Herald, and I know there's an Amy B from Portland, Maine on this vine, so "HOWDY!" I was struck by the double-entendre of "As Maine goes, so goes the Nation" and that is where I needed to go back and look something that I had bookmarked up, before continuing here. (and I'm also just now getting a small amount of time to be back here before being called to a dinner of "steak au pouive!" spelling?:) Anyway, fascinating it is that the entire State of Maine has not even the population of 1/4 of NYC and but apparently a Government and Courts trying to "control" it like it might as well be all of NYC. It seems they missed their own "tipping point" in continuing to think that As Maine goes....means they're leading in some way instead of being actually being "the butt end" of where the Nation has already gone. The Article I bookmarked was about one of Maine's Senators, Susan Collins, trying to tear Jamaica a new a$$hole for "scamming" People. It's incredulous to read because all that she's saying she might as well (and would be more on target) if she substituted US for Jamaica. It's also incredulous the ferocity she's going at them with to also include telling them how they SHOULD so starkly be running their Country in an implied way that would never be tolerated or accepted in the US when it comes to FRAUD and scamming and taking advantage of the vulnerable. It was so strikingly the epitome of the "pot calling the kettle black", including going on to list the "damages" and "ruin" done to People's lives and that is why I bookmarked it. Now going back to check on that "electronic" story, it's been changed to no longer relect naming those specific "damages" that mirrored exactly what has been done to the entire US and its People and economy, NOT BY JAMAICA, but by The Republicans in Congress and the GOP. How do they see it so clearly and know so strongly and forcefully how wrong it all is and how it needs to "IMMEDIATELY" be stopped, but only when deflected to be what somebody else is doing? I'm giving you the link below if you want to check out whatever is now left to the Article. (and check the entire Paper, too, while you're at it. It's really "Representatively" INCREDULOUS (check back on all the stories for the week!) what is going on in the State of Maine! Home of "The Whistler" that I read about a couple of weeks ago, and complete with plenty of Court-ordered NO RIGHT TO KNOW, for the People; electronic or otherwise)

Call to dinner now. I might not be able to get back again until the morning.

http://www.pressherald.com/polotics/Sens-Collins-Nelson-urge-Holder-to-pursue-Jamaican-scammers.html

Mystery Rhee

It seems your link was dead.

john-737278, #1.53- Opportunity knocked yesterday and my Son was available for the whole day to be my second pair of hands and help me get a long designed and planned built-in wall unit done so I couldn't get back to this post until now. I don't know if you're still following this thread but I hope to be able to try and get back to reply to you, this evening. (I have to take care of the Monday-Grind, first, though) I'm really very interested in your above post reply about the "Justice"-NOT System and sorry I couldn't get back yesterday but will try for this evening.

Startling that my link was "DEAD!" (but it could have been Me, with and because of my Technological Challenges, just not doing it right:)

What a stupid comment. You know of course that federal judges are appointed for life. If you were intending to suggest a threat to this judge, I hope and expect that federal LE will be all over your idiot ass. As for the decision, it was dead on correct.

WOW! you took that totally wrong. I was suggesting that those above her in government that don't agree with her decision would do it, not me.

OK, fine. But that's still pretty dumb. You can't remove a federal judge, other than through an impeachment, which is rare and difficult. And any other suggestion... is just ridiculous. It's a judicial decision. It's within the range of reasonable, no matter how you slice it (I happen to agree with it, but big deal). It's all part of the process of political give and take in this country. OK? Now chill out...

J. Mark Lane

Pretty dumb?

You just took away part of the ability of the most powerful man in the world to do as he wishes, and you wouldn't question your safety? Hmmm People are disappeared all the time. An accident here, a supposed heart attack there.

I understand the branches of government quite well thank you. The Executive has gotten too much power. That makes it no longer give and take, does it not? And I am not wound up, you took my first comment wrong.

Most powerful man in the world? Who? Obama? Ahahahaha...

I did not say the most correct man, did I? And he is the most powerful man in the world however misguided that may be. And he has been given powers that no President should ever have. While this decision may be a great step moving in the right direction, it is a long way from giving back the rights taken by the Patriot Act

Lol. It's hilarious how many people insist that Obama is a tyrant, a dictator, a this, a that.

As Jon Stewart said, this dictator is continually stopped by failed cloture votes. He is pretty lame for a dictator.

zaruski, no one said he was a smart wannabe dicktraitor. Yes he has had lots of failures (thank God) But it isn't from lack of trying and he has a little over three years to try and get us under martial law so he can stay in office as long as he can get away with!

Special Govt Security Agency note 03/15/2013 -

remember to add john-737278 to our list............

jw101

Thanks! That made me laugh. I am sure I have probably been on their list for a while for publicly disagreeing with those that supposedly represent me. So be it.

"john-737278

I did not say the most correct man, did I? And he is the most powerful man in the world however misguided that may be. And he has been given powers that no President should ever have. While this decision may be a great step moving in the right direction, it is a long way from giving back the rights taken by the Patriot Act"

John while I agree with you about the so called Patriot Act the decision was made against the FBI not the President and the "letters" have been law since the 1980's.

The trouble as I see it is that this is bigger than the Presidency.

It has been indicated by past Presidents that there comes a time when they become aware of things they didn't even imagine. The difficulty with that is when you know, it changes everything. You have to look at the world through a new set of eyes.

Realize that it is other people who reveal this kind of information to a new President. That means that others know and there is another system at work and continuing their work from one President to another. At some point you have to wonder if they even tell him everything. Is it possible that some information is withheld? Is it possible that unless you ask the right questions they might hold some things back to see how you take it?

Some may see this as fantasy, but if you think about it, there are extremely powerful agencies in the government that operate 24/7 and they don't all get replaced every time the White House gets a new resident. There are powerful people who have spent their entire lives in government, often behind the scenes and virtually unknown to most of the public. Do you think that these people are just great suck-ups who manage to keep their positions from one administration to another? Knowledge is power.

As a President begins to learn these things, should he just spill the beans to everyone? Is it more likely that he is pretty much forced to work with that system and do his best to influence it over time?

Can you imagine what would have happened if some time early in 2009 Obama gave a big public speech "coming clean" on everything that had happened since 9-11? How would the country have perceived this? How many would have called him a traitor for revealing national secrets just to hang the Bush/Cheney Administration? What damage would have been done to the country? Think about it.

I think the only real choice that new President has is to make his best efforts to rein in some of the aspects he does not agree with. I am not even sure he could stop everything if he wanted to. In a short time he becomes a part of it. That makes it even more difficult. At the same time he is also learning about some threats that many likely have no idea even exist. The people who have nurtured this system will do their very best to justify keeping it alive. Very likely he comes to the conclusion that at least some of it is indeed necessary. Is it possible that the original "too big to fail" organization is in fact the system of government that runs 24/7 regardless of who gets elected?

I have little doubt that what I have just described does indeed exist. Maybe even worse. We have seen evidence of this before in our history, many years later. I suspect it just gets worse and more complex in times of war. We like to say and we like to be viewed, as the country who can be trusted to play by the rules. But we all know that isn't entirely true that we in fact uphold that appearance. Do you think that the things that leak out are just the occasional rare examples of somebody getting off track, or is it more likely that it's the tip of the iceberg?

To this day, we do not know everything that is in the Patriot Act. The mere fact that they even called it the Patriot Act implies that if you revealed some parts of it that are top secret, you would in fact be a traitor. We hear bits an pieces about these things and if you have any kind of memory, you know full well that this stuff has been going on long before Obama took office. Assuming he wanted to, do you really think he could have just dismantled it quietly? I believe this kind of thing has happened to almost every President in modern times and likely even going back to the very beginning. An incoming President is going to be steered by these things and before long he has his hand on the wheel and his only real options are accelerating or decelerating.

I'm sure some of you will want to deny that this could be true, but just think about it and put yourself in the President's shoes.

The president is just a talking head that the 'board of advisors' or whoever changes out from time to time. That's why this started in the 80s and has continually gotten worse over the years. Could that many different presidents, with their different views, backgrounds, and goals really keep this thing going and make it stronger if the 'president' actually had control?

"Crowbar7

zaruski, no one said he was a smart wannabe dicktraitor. Yes he has had lots of failures (thank God) But it isn't from lack of trying and he has a little over three years to try and get us under martial law so he can stay in office as long as he can get away with!"

When our money system fails, and it will, whoever is President will only be a puppet to the the real people in power. Now I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want Obama for the public face of their puppet government so I think it will all happen during a Republican Administration.

BP-2252891

I understand that the decision was made against the FBI. And the FBI reports to whom? The Attorney General. And the AG is a puppet of whom?

IMHO Holder is a piece of crap that does not respect the law, so how can he be obligated or trusted to uphold it? In my opinion he is in violation of the law simply with his comments about justifying authority to kill US citizens and not delineating on foreign soil, which he has made on numerous occasions.

1NewDay

I do agree there are things the President is made aware of that we are not. And by whom we don't know. There has to be a reason that when there is a President elect that has his first meeting with an out-going President that he comes out looking 10 years older and horrified.

What I ask is that they are honest with us and give justification for their actions, of which we receive none. If our reduction in liberties has reason, explain it. Be honest and honorable, not deceitful and underhanded.

Back in 1992 178 nations signed on to Agenda 21. Signed by Bush 1 and then again by Clinton who initiated the plan. What could have happened in that UN meeting that could have gotten 178 nations to agree? 178? That many nations have never agreed on anything.

I ask them to be honest.

1NewDay......I can understand your point of view. However, the real trouble with agreeing with it comes in when instead of reversing acts that are questionable at best, we see attempts made to add to the transgressions.

The President has a Bully Pulpit to work from. When he sees wrong being done, he needs to right it. This is the kind of person the American hope they elect when they go to vote....otherwise....what's the point? People hope that our candidates actually might act on their campaign rhetoric if elected. What you write about is exactly why people are probably more pessimistic about our government now than at any point since the Civil War. They see, and very plainly after the last election, that candidates can use the 'etch-a-sketch' strategy. They can say or do anything today and then completely reverse their positions tomorrow with 'clarifications'. Simply saying it's tough job makes me think they really like things the way they are and are using eveything the have to keep it that way. Problem is...you can't fool ALL the people ALL the time, that's a lesson PT Barnum tried to teach.

Seriously.....does anyone buy into the photos of The President, skeet shooting?....really believe he did that 'all the time'? After that incident, the press wasn't very welcome anymore, and the Corporate Offices offered up some token protests and then it died. Ben Franklin must be fuming about right now!

John,

One thing Glenn Beck failed to mention in his tirade about agenda 21 that helps it make so much sense that 178 countries signed on to it is this. It is non-binding and simply makes a ton of sense across the board.

It has been "in place" for 20 years but all the gloom and doom Beck and other right wing extremists have described have not happened.

I'll just ask, if you are so worried about it, did you bother to read it? It is only 351 pages.

All that Agenda 21 is, is a set of concepts about sustainability. It is not a governing document, it simply says that on the whole, the vast overwhelming majority of the world agrees that we all benefit by thinking wisely about helping to sustain the world and the human race.

There is no doubt that the interpretations by the likes of Beck and many Tea Party types sound scary. And if what the said were true, it could be scary. But these folks are jumping to conclusions with no basis in fact.

The scare tactics associated with Agenda 21 are enjoying a resurgence by the far right wing of the GOP. Fed heavily by climate change deniers and those who see a socialist conspiracy in everything they don't agree with.

As for what is behind a lot of things like these secrecy provisions. I don't think it is really some particular group or conspiracy. I don't think it is the work of a secret society or a communist plot. Probably not something associated with aliens either. I think it is more just the power and influence of the elite. Bottom line is money is power and power will protect its interests. For example, if you look at terrorism, it is far less a direct threat to American citizens as it is to the system. If anything, as a group, many years ago President Eisenhower described it as the military industrial complex. But in 50 years it has even grown from that, to include the financial industry and the general corporate nature of the vast majority of wealth in the country. Another way of looking at it is that if you want to find those behind it that really form these policies, just follow the money.

And Johnnyt, I agree with you about trying to make things right and the potential use of the bully pulpit. But there are limitations. You also need to realize that the ones behind these things have their own highly effective "pulpit" to steer people's opinions. Lets say that shortly after taking office, Obama "came clean" with all the stuff hidden in the Patriot Act. Half the country would have seen him as a traitor and the other half would have been picking out trees for Bush and Cheney. It would have destroyed the country.

Instead, the best a President can do is work it around the edges. He can, behind the scenes, try to phase out some policies or choose not to aggressively continue them. He can create public awareness in more subtle ways. Creating that awareness in that way is probably more effective. If he comes out and exposes everything, you can be sure that those behind it will feel threatened and they will use their power against him. Sometimes a good way to do this is to leak information. Maybe not in a direct way as to instruct someone to leak info, but more likely in an indirect way. You make your feelings known to those iin your administration and they in turn see their own personal feelings about some injustice being in line with their boss. He doesn't tell them to leak, but they do it because it is the right thing to do.

When facing an opponent more powerful than you are, you can do it directly and get your ass kicked or you can go at it more indirectly and be far more effective, because it isn't a one of one confrontation. But instead many against one in a multi-front attack. Sometimes the best way to lead is by empowering others to lead. There are occasionally, great inspirational leaders who can get many to blindly follow awaiting their orders. But the more effective leaders of change are less in the spotlight. They inspire others to lead and not just be followers. This is how so called "grass roots" movements work. But one of the best ways to to destroy a grass roots movement is to have someone jump out in front and proclaim themselves as the leader. Before long, there are few followers.

We often want the President to do something, but we forget that his power is limited in a lot of ways, he can't write new laws and he can't lead a divided Congress. Sometimes he can do a lot more by not being noticed so much as being out front of an issue. I suppose you could call it style and the best leaders will adapt their style to the situation. If there is one thing that would suck about being the President, it is that you get both the blame and the credit for what Congress does. A lot of people seem to think that the President leads Congress. Nothing could be farther from true. It just doesn't work that way. You simply can not herd cats. You have to fool them into thinking they are going where they want to, and even that isn't so easy.

1NewDay

Actually, I have read it, along with attachments that have been done in recent years. I din't even know the idiot wrote a book about it until a couple of weeks ago.

For the most part, I do agree with it, but I do have a few problems.

One is that you state it is non-binding, but it is being implemented behind our backs. When Clinton signed it he put in place the Presidents council for sustainable development which uses the EPA as an enforcement arm. And the EPA has nearly reduced uses of property to zero. It states that landowners are not good stewards of the land. Tell farmers that that make their living from it. For something non-binding it sure has been implemented. Check out your local town, and I bet principles from it are now code.

Secondly, because the EPA has become so strict on land use and emission standards, it has pushed business out of the country to places that have no standards whatsoever. We still breath the air and drink the water.

Thirdly, it discusses spreading of wealth. Well, in order to bring others up, it must bring us down. I have a problem with that mentality when they could work hard and bring themselves up to our level. We should not have to lose.

Finally, the biggest problem I have with it is that it doesn't, until an addendum was done, deal with the real problem. That problem is overpopulation. If the population was reduced over time to around 3 or 4 billion Agenda 21 would be unnecessary. We should be giving free birth control, sterilization, and abortions to anyone, reduce welfare so they choose to use birth control instead of getting paid to have kids. This world is breeding poor, and that is the cause for the necessity to protect the earth. I think it is simple. Less people-less pressure on the earth. And it will regenerate. China's one child policy is one of the smartest things done.

John,

No argument that the ideas expressed have made their way into implementation in some areas. But that was the idea. It was about putting out ideas and concepts everybody could agree were good principles for sustainability. Like a lot of good things, there are times when it can be taken too far by the over zealous. However, a lot of that is about opinions.

For the most part, the EPA has been very good for Amercians. After Nixon created it, every other Republican Congress and President has tried to tear it down. Likewise, Democrats in power tend to build it back up.

I grew up in big industry and now live in farm country. I've seen both environments abused. The area I grew up is pretty much poisoned for the foreseeable future. I have little doubt that I will suffer some health effects as I age because of my exposures. I also know that modern farming practices have a lot of problems too. Too many chemicals that manage to get into the aquifers. Too much animal habitat destroyed. Too much water used. Factory farms may be efficient ways to make money but are not at all good for the environment in many ways. As for land use limitations, on the whole what I have seen has been good overall. You may be aware that ALEC is leading an almostl secret movement to put unrestricted, anything goes, land use Amendments into state Constitutions and writing similar legislation in to county boards. These things are handled a bit differently from one local government system to another, but they are attacking it on all fronts. ALEC is nothing but a corporate shill who uses and abuses the right wing to push their legislative ideas. These guys really ought to be facing a major Congressional investigation because they clearly work outside their Non-Profit status charter.

This stuff, just like other ALEC pattern legislation like voter restrictions, will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court. No state can decide that it can ignore federal regulations. Like a lot of recent strategies, rather than create a big public fight at a federal level, they are trying to sneak things in through local governments instead. One of their objectives is to neuter the EPA. They figure that the country wouldn't stand for eliminating it, so they are instead trying to disable its use locally. This isn't a grass roots movement of the people, but a well organized and funded, corporate driven initiative to disable government one piece at a time. They convince locals that it is their own ideas, but it isn't.

I am a landowner with pretty good air and water. But I know that someone five or ten miles away can destroy that if "anything goes" land use is permitted. I have a mix of agriculture around me. Still some relatively small family business and also corporate farms and small farms contracted by the corporations. I have seen first hand the effects of overuse of pesticides and other chemicals. I've seen the pig poop lakes overflow with heavy rains at a couple corporate swine operations not very far away. (luckily for me, down wind of the prevailing winds.)

I've seen a local family farmer destroyed by Monsanto over genetically modified crops. They accused him of "saving seed". Something that ought not be illegal. He spent a lot of money getting other old school farmers crops tested. Guys who never planted genetically modified seed, yet the DNA markers show up in their crops. These are guys who have farmed sustainably for years and some who have exclusively grown their own seed for years. This isn't supposed to happen, but it does. The farmer who went through the efforts couldn't afford to continually battle the corporate lawyers and they even turned his evidence against the farmers who helped him, filing suits against them too.

Watch the documentary "Food Inc", it is educational. I've seen it fairly up close. I don't farm, but I know a lot of guys that do. A couple old guys who have fought to do things the old school ways and others who have pretty much been forced to change. The land use issues are about protecting corporate interests, not the few guys committed to sustainable farming practices. I hear some beefs about the EPA regarding certain chemical uses. The problem becomes that when faced with losing everything, a farmer is going to do what he has to do even if there may be some risk that he poisons himself and his neighbors. But then none of these guys have doctorates in Chemistry so they really don't understand the potential consequences. For the guys who are contract farming, there big worry is about surviving and their corporate overlords don't really care how they do it.

As for distributing wealth, I understand what you are saying but what is Capitalism if it isn't wealth re-distribution? Just not in the direction it is usually referred to. Part of the problem is that because of technologies, efficiencies and other factors including population, we can produce everything we need without using a big part of the population in the process. Basically, not enough sustainable jobs to go around. But business needs consumers and it just isn't morally right to let fellow human beings starve because they aren't able to participate in the economic cycle. Just seems to me that the only humane solution is to give these people enough to survive out of the profits seen at the top.

Today, few in the US live sustainable self sufficient life styles. In emerging countries like China, they have taken many millions of these people away from that type life and put them into the economic cycle model. In the course of doing that, driven by profit opportunity, we have shipped many of our jobs there. Once removed from the self-sustaining life style, few can return to it. People become dependent on playing the game. But their aren't enough seats at the table for everybody to play.

A big reason for the shortage of jobs in the susatinable economy is related to the population. We can produce enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, but we don't need everybody to accomplish that. Worse yet, as we exploit our resources and environment to produce all this stuff, we will at some point reach the point where there isn't enough left. We are long past operating at a sustainable pace.

We are overpopulated, there is little doubt of that. But how do we "fix" that problem? Years ago and even today in the animal kingdom, population was was self correcting. If you don't have food and water, you soon depart from the living population. But as humans with free choice, this simply doesn't seem like the kind of solution we should embrace.

I'm not entirely sure that I totally agree with China's policy on children. I'm not sure we should block people from having them, but we ought to discourage making lots of babies. Or maybe encourage sensible behavior with appropriate incentives. I'm all for things like birth control and abortions if necessary to keep from having kids you don't really want or can't support. As to welfare babies being deliberately created to milk the system, I have doubts that this is a regularly applied strategy. There really isn't much in it. Kids cost a lot more to raise than they are worth in freebies. I don't doubt that it does occur in some limited number by the stupid, but most with a mild degree of common sense can see it really isn't such a great idea.

In the US we'd have to rethink a number of things. One might be a standard deduction for one or two kids, but then reduce it for subsequent kids under the principle of economy of scale. You could do welfare in a similar fashion. You'd have to be careful that children wouldn't suffer because of this, but it could work. You might get this through by getting some cuts on the welfare side, but the right wing would fight to the end over things like free birth control or abortions. But you'd need that, to make the other reasonable.

It becomes problematic in many other countries. Maybe birth control would help. One problem is that when people have nothing else to do, making babies seems to occur at higher levels. Overall, the US is not a big contributor to the population problems, but we could do better and be more sensible. Overall though, this won't be easy to solve and we may very well hit the breaking point and get self correction anyway. That shouldn't stop us from trying though.

There is a downside though as the population age shifts. At some point, there could become a shortage of young people to do the work and support the elderly. The upside is less young people to fight wars too. There has to be trade-offs to get a workable balance. Frankly, I think the wealthy need to contribute more toward taking care of the elderly. In reality, it was often the elderly who played a significant role in creating the wealth for the wealthy. To me there is no doubt that some amount of wealth distribution is necessary. That would take some financial pressure of the young.

I believe that you are correct in that a lot of the other problems would be less significant with fewer people. But we still need to address those issues too.

It really is hard to knock the principles of Agenda 21. I don't think it is something to fear. Sure if you are going to apply aspects of it, you need to use common sense and use it where it is applicable, but the best way to deal with it is to address each specific case of potential problems, individually as opposed to trashing the whole thing. It will never be a ruling document. And a lot of the aspects of it can be applied without infringing on individual rights.

I know this is not the most correct thing to say, but what this world needs is a virus that kills 4-5 billion. Problem of earth sustainability solved, at least for a while. The earth would recover in a couple of decades.

Like I said, I agree with a lot of it, but some things I never will. Because all of it limits liberty. Is it smart? yes. Is it controlling? Most definitely yes.

Maybe a philosophical question. Considering how engrained the use of oil is in society, from a major source of revenue for entire countries, to currencies being locked to its value, all the way down to the lowly gas station attendant. How many own their existence to the energy industry? 1 billion?, two?, three? The only reason our population has exploded is because of oil and the energy industry. What would actually happen to the world if someone came up with perpetual energy and none of their jobs were needed any longer?

Atlas would shrug.

John,

We're not really in disagreement. But I think "Liberties" is a somewhat subjective word and doesn't not always translate to Constitutionally protected individual rights or freedoms. I think we perceive some things we are used to as being liberties but that aren't really connected with Constitutional rights. Land use might be a good example. I think the main thing is that we can't be allowed to exercise our rights in such a way as to infringe on others'. The same principles should apply to liberties which aren't exactly rights. I'm OK with you using your land how you want unless your actions somehow change conditions on mine. If what you do sucks the aquifer dry, that we both use, or craps it up to where it is no longer useful, you infringed on my liberties associated with the use of that aquifer. We can view liberty as being free to do just about anything as long as it doesn't have negative consequences on someone else. But because what we did in the past maybe didn't have adverse consequences on others, and today it does, did we lose some freedoms or liberties? I say no, even though the behavior became limited where it wasn't before. Maybe it's a fine line distinction, but this loss of "freedom" didn't necessariy infringe on your Constitutional rights. It is just the impact of new information or a growing society. Feels like you lost something though. Maybe in practice but not in concept.

As to the oil question I think there is little doubt it has played a role in at least the developed world which ultimately resulted in more people being here today. If you just solely looked at how it changed agriculture, you can see how significant it was. It would be a different world without it, but as far as how much it impacted population growth in the US for example, you might be surprised. Your question intrigued me so I thought I would investigate it. I plotted out census data from 1790 through 2010. If you look at growth from 1790 to about 1880 you can see a clear increasing rate of growth much as would be expected naturally. However, from there on to today, the rate of growth pretty much becomes a straight line with a slight dip and then return during the years of World War II and then immediately after. without that little bump, the slope of the growth rate is entirely linear. The blip at this time is pretty explainable because of the war. A significant amount of war deaths plus low birth rates while such a large portion of the male population was away at war. And thenthe baby boom recovery after the war. With that exception, it is a remarkably linear growth rate.

Pretty interesting because it was at the end of the 19th century that oil appeared on the scene. Yet this is when the population quits growing exponentially and become linear. If oil where a positive growth factor, the slope would indicate a steep rise in rate. But that isn't what happens at all. Unimpeded, you could expect population to continue to rise exponentially. When you also consider that in the last 100 years, life expectancy has risen and birth death rates have decreased, it become even more surprising. So why did the growth rate level out instead of continuing to climb? It is a damn good question. In the animal kingdom, as long as there is ample food and no significant change in predators, it will usually continue to climb until it hits a limit, usually food related, and then it collapses.

I believe third world and developing nations show a more normal exponential growth rate pattern, although I didn't try to graph it. Oil has had a much smaller impact on these countries until very recently. Also interesting is in some developing African nations, they are taking a different energy path. Other than in cities there is little power infrastructure and wind and solar are becoming popular for the traditional tribes people in villages as are cell phones in these areas where no land lines even exist. There is also a fair amount of alternate fuel vehicle use too. In some respects it is almost like they skipped a step. Whether or not oil contributed significantly to population growth doesn't seem to be supported by data. However, because of our dependence on oil and the way it has shaped our daily lives, I think its rapid disappearance would have very significant effects. Food production would suffer significantly and that likely has a real impact on population before very long.

It is in the Tenth Amendment where it is stated that all rights not listed are reserved to the States, or the people. It is liberties unstated that are being infringed upon, especially with respect to property rights. I live on ten acres. Because of rules put forth by planning commissions based on Agenda 21, there are very specific things that limit my use that have absolutely nothing to do with others property. Here is a case where a couple bought a lake property to built a dream home. The EPA tried to change delineated wetland descriptions to keep them from building their home. In fact, the EPA levied huge fines for non-comliance to force them to give up their rights. They said no. I am glad they fought back and won because the EPA is out of control. It is small incremental changes that are rarely noticed by the public until they are in place that I believe are an infringement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-usa-court-epa-idUSBRE82K0YT20120321

The problem I see with what the use of oil is that it changed society to more of a dependent society. We went away from being able to survive on our own by the simplest things like growing food. Without oil I think there would be mass starvation because many skills have been lost and forgotten. Many see it as progress, but that is what I question.

I did not look it up, but am surprised by what you state that population growth has been linear. Especially during the time of the Civil War that killed half a million people. What would the population be had that not happened? Extrapolating that out over 7 generations. I could be wrong but think we would be over 400 million.

John,

Yeah, we've heard that before! However, only very rarely has the Supreme Court upheld claims using the 10th Amendment. Usually, the "Necessary and Proper Clause" or the "Commerce Clause" trumps 10th Amendment claims.

In 1931 the Court said that the 10th Amendment "added nothing to the Constitution as originally ratified."

Then ten years later in 1941 in another 10th Amendment claim case they held against, they said,

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

The only successful claims using the 10th Amendment were cases where laws compelled state to enforce and administer Federal statutes, and even then in only narrowly focused ways.

The idea that if the words aren't specifically in the Constitution, it leaves it up to the states to decide, is something the Supreme Court has never been upheld. In reality there are numerous powers that are implied within the Constitution as long as they have some cross state or wider Federal application.

There is ample evidence in the history surrounding the Bill of Rights that the 10th Amendment was not intended to limit power as has been suggested, but was more about keeping the government out of inconsequential issues. There were fears at the time that the Federal government might nullify and rewrite virtually all local laws. The 10th Amendment was not written to trump the rest of the Constitution. More accurately it said that the left overs not covered under Federal powers, belonged to the states. Although the "Necessary and Proper Clause" an the "Commerce Clause" did not specify every possible specific application, they did in fact describe the circumstances that the powers covered.

The layman read and interpretation of the Constitution is sometimes over simplified and it was anticipated that this could happen. The Supreme Court is tasked with being the arbitrator who digs into the history and case law surrounding the Constitution. When they rule, they create the precedent that further defines the Constitution.

I don't really mean this in a derogatory sense, but those who are pushing "State's Rights" and other 10th Amendment related movements are really only looking for reasons to nullify or violate Federal laws. And it is not so much that the federal laws have no merit, but more that they don't like them. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that so many times it is about issues where states would like to limit individuals or groups of individual rights. I have little use for people like that. It general comes from right wing views and sometimes from opposing right wing views. The pure Libertarian view is one corner, the right wing Evangelicals and the somewhat cross of the Tea Party are a couple more. Often too, there is sometimes and underlying racism thread which seems to indicate that they believe that if the majority agrees to some type of discrimination, it should be OK.

I don't mean to suggest that you necessarily fall into any of those categories. I can sometimes sympathize with some Libertarian viewpoints. I consider myself as a Progressive but not an extreme Liberal. Often I think some of my colleagues on the far left will over reach to where they shouldn't go because it in fact is talking about perceives freedoms that may in fact be infringing on Constitutional freedoms. Case in point is the current push for extensive gun control. I get what they are trying to do but the Constitution guarantees a basic right to self defense. It is foolish to think that somehow the Federal laws could make that unnecessary. Interestingly enough, gun control laws is one of the very few cases where the 10th Amendment actually did come into play in 1997. It was again a narrow application applied only to some interim provisions of the Brady Act.

As far as the case you noted, it had nothing to do with the 10th Amendment and it didn't overturn the EPAs ruling, but only said that the EPA could not over ride an individual's right to their day in court to appeal a decision which included an arbitrary punishment. Basically, you can convict someone of a crime without a trial. This is about individual rights and in no way about the EPA not having any power. It just said they can't abuse it. I don't buy the generality that the EPA is "out of control". They may at times overstep and it wouldn't be the first time any agency, Federal or local, has done that. That's why we have a court system.

I have seen a lot of good that the EPA has done first hand. I have also seen a lot of attempts to circumvent their regulations with little regard for public good, but driven by profit motivations. Environmental management is an enormous industry providing a huge amount of jobs and also making for a cleaner and safer environment. That wouldn't exist if it were not for the EPA. There would be little free market motivation for it. I'm not saying the EPA is perfect, but overall they have been a very good thing for the country. The situation you pointed to is a case like I mentioned before where the far Left took a good thing to an extreme level that violated individual rights. The Court pointed that out. That doesn't mean the EPA is bad. I have little use for extremists on either side of the political spectrum because they are much like religious fanatics. They mean well, but don't realize what they are doing because they are blinded by their fanatical beliefs.

Can't post my spreadsheet and graph, but here's the raw population data. There is a very slight variation between 1860 and 1870. And the deaths were put at about 625,000 which was getting close to 2% of the population in 1860, however we were still growing exponentially then so it doesn't look as significant divided in 10 year chunks. I suspect if they had good numbers on an annual basis, it would be more noticeable.

1790 - 3,929,214
1800 - 5,308,483
1810 - 7,239,881
1820 - 9,638,453
1830 - 12,866,020
1840 - 17,069,453
1850 - 23,191,876
1860 - 31,443,321
1870 - 38,558,371
1880 - 50,189,209
1890 - 62,979,766
1900 - 76,212,168
1910 - 92,228,496
1920 - 106,021,537
1930 - 123,202,624
1940 - 132,164,569
1950 - 151,325,798
1960 - 179,323,175
1970 - 203,302,031
1980 - 226,542,199
1990 - 248,709,873
2000 - 281,421,906
2010 - 307,745,538

I'll just close in saying it has been a good discussion and you seem like a mostly sensible, thoughtful person overall. I think you have legitimate concerns although I don't quite agree with your arguments. It is good to be at least open to others concerns and consider their positions. We often look at the same things from different perspectives and listening to other perspectives can help make our own positions better in the long run. As I said, I was intrigued by your idea about oil and population so much that it made me do some work to analyze it. I think we are both in basic agreement about how overall impactful it has become, at least in the US, which just points out that we shouldn't take it for granted and maybe need to look harder at alternatives. Our debate broadened my position. It is a nice change of pace to have a respectable debate.

And with as well. Cheers

Dont be too glad- read the NDAA and the executive orders within it. Not a peep from the judicial branch. Not one.

The Executive is exercising powers granted to it by Congress. As far as I'm concerned, Congress (and the people who elected it) are responsible for these problems.

reterry, You spoke the truth here. I don't know how or if it can be undone but we the people need to take our rights back.

reterry, You spoke the truth here. I don't know how or if it can be undone but we the people need to take our rights back.

I suppose the phrase, "Give me liberty or give me death" is dead.

And you thought Bush was bad...

this current fraud is ten times worse.

FU CK RUBIO and the horse he rode in on (he's a brainless TWIT)

Your post shows your intelligence level. I wonder who the brainless twit really is...

Please excuse Marina, it has only been in this country a short distance.

But wait to see our big American bulges, foxes! We are two wild and crazy guys!

Yeah, dumb and dumber.

Blow me.

'scuse me lkhdic - want to compare sheepskins, oh reichwingnutreligionazi?

I HAVE 2 - 1 is an advanced degree in the sciences and I despise RUBIO (although there is no degree for that)

15 years,then hopefully level out nicely.

I sent a letter to my company asking them to explain their policy of sharing my information. So far they won't even acknowledge even receiving it. When I try to ask them right then and there what the policy is, they tell me they aren't sure of what the policy is. Of course, they avoid me like I have the plague now.

That is supposed to make me feel like they are protecting me?

It all started over an article I read that said about half of American Corps are selling all the data they collect on their employees to some company that packages and re-sells it to anyone willing to pay.

times have changed - this is "the information age"

Yes, I know that, but just because this is the information age doesn't mean the government should have this much power. George Washington never would have imagined that the executive branch could have enough authority to kill any American suspected of being a threat.

Agree with you. I have no fear about my neighbor stealing a photo of me off facebook.......the government however I do along with everything else. I will keep to the old fashion method of communication in privacy..

That botches all investigation. 90 days or even two years is not enough time to gather information to convict. We're smart, they're smarter.

Where do you come up with stuff like this?

Hello, welcome to Stepford. Would you like some Kool-Aid?

Holy bat chit crazy!!! Wow!!! Lay off the drugs!

I see Barry is now going by Tommy Waters, pick a darn name Barrack, and stick with it!

For supporting our freedom? You sir need to leave this country I hear North Korea is nice I'll buy the plane ticket.

Only if I had something to hide and I don't, other than that who cares. I do think it would be wise for the government to know if someone was making 20 calls a day to a known terrorist organization in another country. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

a---rand

If you don't care, surely you have something to hide. How do you know when you have broken the law when you don't know ALL of the laws that apply to you? Did you ever buy or sell something privately without paying the sales tax due? In our nation of secret rules and laws, break any of them and you can be jailed or worse. Only those that are part of the elite military or civilian lawmaking or legal enforcement system (good ole' boys) have nothing to worry about--they are above the law

hummmmmmm ... there were no Federal government hero's of 9/11 they fooked up everything they tried ..

The real Hero's of 9/11 were a group of ordinary Americans on a aircraft .. flight 93 ... that fought the terrorist that had taken over the aircraft .. gave their lives ...fighting, rather than giving in ..resulting in the plane crashing in Pennsylvanian and saving a devastating crash into the White House or Capitol ..

Soldiers Dad is right on ...

Just a excuse to take away our rights ...

"Farewell" The Rights of Man .. "

The key word in your reply, Free Thinker, is TAKE. Not ask. Not appeal. Not petition.

TAKE.

Your rights were taken away, when they made laws.

Yes Dave, it's for our safety. Before 9/11 we had too many in this country that truly believed that the government knows better than us what decisions to make for us.

The founders constructed this nation to allow freedom for all. You were free to do anything you pleased up to the point that it infringed on someone else's rights. Before that point you were guaranteed freedom FROM government interfering in your life. At that point you were breaking the law by infringing on someone else's rights and the government got involved, by way of police or Sheriff to stop you from infringing on the rights of others. Other than that the government didn't bother you and you never heard from the government. Imagine a world like that.

To those who say, "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about." That is not true, unless you are breaking the law you are supposed to be free from government interference in your life. That is the definition of freedom. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." Those were very true words then and they are still very true words today. The founders would be horrified to see how involved in our daily lives the government is today. Nothing could be farther from what the founders intended.

That's right MBR. Flight 93 is the most extreme example but there are many others that have subdued an unruly passenger or duct taped them in place.

Thank you Moonbeamracer and Dave.

Did American Indians have rights?

wtf., #15.2,

No, that's what you get for claiming to be another nation.

Dave, those Border Patrol searches away from the border have been going on since the 1970s. Reagan started a lot of this crap, and it escalated dramatically after 9/11, of course. Why Obama has not stepped on it is beyond me. I think he is pretty clueless for a President. And shame on Napolitano. She, too, should know better. Paranoia is a disease. Too bad there is no vaccination for it. There is, however, a solution. Americans need to stand up for everyone's rights, not just there own personal issues. So when TSA tries to relax some nonsensical rules, airlines and crews and media do a knee jerk objection without considering the rights of the passengers that keep those planes flying. Some people are all too happy that the Border Patrol and Sheriffs now can legally stop and detain US citizens if they look like they might be Hispanic. Never mind that their families may have been citizens for many generations. NRA wants to make the control of weapons of mass destruction a 2nd amendment issue, when its really about money for gun manufacturers. Support unAmerican laws of any kind, and they will eventually come back to bite you and yours. Remember that in the 1800s some states had nutso laws against taking baths. Congress needs to stop making laws, and weed out existing ones. Neither Dems nor Repubs will do this. Too much $ on the table.

Really, the government JUST named you an enemy of the State. Better hide you unlucky loser....

Nonsense. Being a thinking American does not make you an enemy of the state. Freedom of speech and thought is still an American principle, although, after all of our strugges for personal freedom, there are folks who continue to think only their opinions and voices should be heard. You know, like the folks who call people with different opinions losers.

You MUST BE JOKING! You wouldn't be free long enough to make it to a REAL court. Try taking your case to a real court from inside a Federal Penitentiary.

Ourdoc......I'm thinking that the vast majority of those letters went to companies with a large share of their business being done with government at one or more levels. Think about this.....if you worked for a company like that and made good money being some type of a manager, would you, as a person climbing the corporate ladder, risk your job for a person that you probably don't even know, and it's going to be kept secret so nobody knows you did in the first place....or would you blow your chances of working there for 6 more months tops and being blackballed from EVER having a decent job again? It's not a hard choice for someone just making the rent payment already.

Don't think for a second I agree with it, I'm just splainin' the facts of life. Thankfully somewhere, someone had enough chutpah to say.....WTF IS THIS ABOUT.....and started making some noise. THAT'S THE PERSON WHO DESERVES A BIG THANK YOU.

It isn't exactly everyday that a legal decision actually comes down on the side of protecting the peoples rights! I'm surprised!

"What's it matter?" It's called the law, the constitution, the Bill of Rights. When secret entities can rewire your life by thwarting the written law, it matters!

And if the laws they wrote protect the people who want to hurt us? We sacrifice.

Black/white/red is not the issue here. Why even bring it up. Think legalities not race. Holder is a wus no matter what his color. That does not make him a bad American, but it does make him a lousy AG.

What we need is a good gun running operation or Benghazi operation to take our focus off this dribble...

Exactly, that's why I opt out on sharing information with the businesses I deal with...