Slashdot Mirror

Happy to reply to you, AC to AC. You should probably learn the actual budget process as you've got it wrong.

A Guide to the federal budget process

You're also mistaken about who owns what in regard to the shutdown. I'm sure you've read plenty of opinion in line with your views, want to try some from another perspective?

Democrats Chose the Shutdown
The Intransigents
Blame the Shutdown on James Madison
The Origins of the Origination Clause
When Tip Did It

Schumer: Democrats Won't Accept a Clean C.R. through 2014
Senior Admin. Official: 'We Are Winning...It Doesn't Really Matter to Us' When Shutdown Ends
Schumer: No Funding for Veterans and NIH 'Because We Have a Tea Party'
Reid: Senate Democrats Won't Fund Programs for Kids with Cancer Until the Entire Government Is Funded

Happy to reply to you, AC to AC. You should probably learn the actual budget process as you've got it wrong.

A Guide to the federal budget process

You're also mistaken about who owns what in regard to the shutdown. I'm sure you've read plenty of opinion in line with your views, want to try some from another perspective?

Democrats Chose the Shutdown
The Intransigents
Blame the Shutdown on James Madison
The Origins of the Origination Clause
When Tip Did It

Schumer: Democrats Won't Accept a Clean C.R. through 2014
Senior Admin. Official: 'We Are Winning...It Doesn't Really Matter to Us' When Shutdown Ends
Schumer: No Funding for Veterans and NIH 'Because We Have a Tea Party'
Reid: Senate Democrats Won't Fund Programs for Kids with Cancer Until the Entire Government Is Funded

so will this result in a theocratic christian government run by the bible belt?

Europe is in a much bigger danger of something like that than the US. It might take 50 years, but trouble is brewing.

European 'No-Go' Zones for Non-Muslims Proliferating - "Occupation Without Tanks or Soldiers"
Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London

France's Less Joyous New Year's Tradition

The overall number of vehicles burned was in line with the 1,147 on the night of Dec. 31, 2009, the last time the government announced the figures. More than 40,000 vehicles are burned each year in France, Mr. Valls said Monday on RTL radio, calling it “an intolerable form of violence against property.” ...

During the autumn 2005 riots that rocked some of Paris’s more volatile suburbs, more than 8,800 cars were burned. At the time, French television censored images of the car-burning so as not to encourage the practice

Losing Malmo

Large percentages of immigrants to Europe reject traditional European values even though they share the land which may eventually be theirs. Native European are on the self-chosen path to extinction, and they will take their values with them.

No Babies?

In the 1990s, European demographers began noticing a downward trend in population across the Continent and behind it a sharply falling birthrate. Non-number-crunchers largely ignored the information until a 2002 study by Italian, German and Spanish social scientists focused the data and gave policy makers across the European Union something to ponder. The figure of 2.1 is widely considered to be the “replacement rate” — the average number of births per woman that will maintain a country’s current population level. At various times in modern history — during war or famine — birthrates have fallen below the replacement rate, to “low” or “very low” levels. But Hans-Peter Kohler, José Antonio Ortega and Francesco Billari — the authors of the 2002 report — saw something new in the data. For the first time on record, birthrates in southern and Eastern Europe had dropped below 1.3. For the demographers, this number had a special mathematical portent. At that rate, a country’s population would be cut in half in 45 years, creating a falling-off-a-cliff effect from which it would be nearly impossible to recover. Kohler and his colleagues invented an ominous new term for the phenomenon: “lowest-low fertility.” ...

In Germany, where the births-to-deaths ratio now results in an annual population loss of roughly 100,000, Ursula von der Leyen, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s family minister (and a mother of seven), declared two years ago that if her country didn’t reverse its plummeting birthrate, “We will have to turn out the light.” Last March, André Rouvoet, the leader of the Christian Union Party in the Netherlands (and a father of five), urged the government to get proactive and spur Dutch women to have more babies. The Canadian conservative Mark Steyn, author of the 2006 best seller “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It,” has warned his fellow North Americans, whose birthrates are relatively high, that, regarding their European allies, “These countries are going out of business,” and that while at the end of the 21st century there may “still be a geographical area on t

here's another one

An actual candidate for political power in your country. The politest thing that can be said about that woman was "boastful ignoramus", and your lot chose her, put her within reach of serious decision making. Such a close call for your country. Your hagiography of Reagan led your GOP drones to think that intelligence is a fault.

And you nearly elected a former beauty contestant and religious zealot to be leader-in-waiting.

It would have been the biggest incentive ever for cancer research though wouldn't it? All the money in the world would have been spent on stopping McCain getting ill, would have been twice as important as the Manhattan project and Apollo put together.

Here's one from another pretty lady.

Here's a nice list of what's bothering the Republicans today. It's a leaked list, but published by the National Review. So take plenty of salt. There's nothing on there about privacy at all.

There is a legal proverb that states, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Have you put yourself on that path? Do you understand the domains criminal law, national security law, and Constitutional law, and their interplay? I see you quote only one amendment, but say nothing about an entire relevant article of the Constitution, nor about relevant court cases that are precedent for the law when it is an issue in the courts. You are on dangerous ground, my friend, dangerous ground. Think carefully before proceeding.

Surveillance Court Upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping

The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance — has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. ...

President Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program — carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight — always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review.

I see you did leave an out though, since the charge almost certainly won't be "treason."

You should probably use more salt when you swallow commentary on Slashdot. There are some questions that the two parties will largely agree on based on broad social consensus*, but contrary to many reports on Slashdot, they tend to pursue different goals in many policy areas.

You may find some insights by reading here from time to time.

* Allowing the country to be invaded is bad. Social welfare programs should continue to exist.

OK.

There are three approaches.

1. We could adopt an originalist approach-- states would usurp the right to vote, and we would feel proud that the greats states were finally asserting the dignity incumbent upon such glorious institutions.
2. We could adopt a formalist approach and amend the various constitutions so that the right to vote was explicitly protected, when the states try the originalist scenario.
3. We could stop worrying about dangerous formalisms, and raise holy hell when states even think of usurpation.

Currently, we're in approach 3, but approach 2 might prove necessary as many states have shown that they have no respect for the franchise. Approach One is for authoritarian assholes, but such people do exist.

Unfortunately it is mainly the wrong part of government that is "transparent." The culture of corruption continues.

The Summer of Corruption: The Plot Thickens
Obama’s Green Favor-Trading
The well runs deep.

Unfortunately it is mainly the wrong part of government that is "transparent." The culture of corruption continues.

The Summer of Corruption: The Plot Thickens
Obama’s Green Favor-Trading
The well runs deep.

Stories like these sicken me when it comes to how they are effectively ignored and swept under the rug. This case was criminally prosecuted only because there was a lot of money involved and it was students and not the staff.

If people are going to spend ridiculously high costs for schooling, they need to know that it's not going to support criminals like those at Winston-Salem.

Major General Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corp, was an extraordinarily brave and devoted Marine who served the United States in an exceptional manner while in uniform, earning two Congressional Medals of Honor - the highest American medal for bravery on the battlefield. Out of uniform and in the realm of politics, however, citizen Butler involved himself in leftist fringe politics. I would be inclined to follow Major General Butler anywhere on the battlefield, but nowhere near a voting booth. In this regard he is like Chomsky, a man of exceptional virtual in his field, but a political crank (popular though he may be) and genocide denier.

. . . . Back in the 1930s, the U.S. Communist Party recruited a former Marine Corps general, Smedley Butler, to give speeches on the eve of World War II denouncing military preparedness as a capitalist racket. The idea was that by persuading an individual man of valor to propound shameful views, those views would somehow become less shameful. It didn’t work then. I doubt it will work now. - Wesley Who?

What are the chances for Snowden to avoid going to prison if he returns home? Zero. Therefore it is quite clear Snowden will try to avoid it, no matter how ''correct' or 'righteous' he may be.

Not necessarily. I don't know that I agree with the view, but there is another: Give Snowden Immunity

I am happy to inform you that your entire post is based on rubbish.

Southern Whites' Shift to the GOP Predates the '60s

Debunking the Myth of the Nixon "Southern Strategy"

The Myth of the Racist Republicans

Desegregation, before Brown

Yes, there are times Godwin's law should be applied. And when your government is reading your mail (email, phone calls, social media). and monitoring your travel (street camers, license plate scanners on police cruisers), and your police are being militarized.

Exhibit 1: Listening to your communication
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354590/greenwald-nsa-has-trillions-e-mails-and-phone-calls-betsy-woodruff

Exhibit 2: Monitoring your travel
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/07/28/18740565.php

Exhibit 3: Militarization of police
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bradlockwood/2011/11/30/the-militarizing-of-local-police/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4203345

***

Essentially, the only reason most American's do not realize they are living in a police state is because most American's are decent folk and indoctrinated to submit to authority. As such, very few American's ever conflict with the state on a level to feel the police state.

The deranged genocide of millions is NOT a requirement for a police state. While Hitler and Stalin killed millions, much of the Soviet Republics police state history was not under the auspices of genocide. A police state, by necessity does not need to be a deranged murderous state, in order to be a police state.

So yes, with all of that happening. I think we've reached high time to be justified in enacting Godwin's Law.

Both of the numbers we listed are correct: about half from membership dues, and 3.2% from corporate donations. The NRA also gets money from advertisements in its publications, payouts from its endowments, donations from members, donations from state-level gun-rights groups, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that there simply isn't a logical case to be made that gun companies control the NRA when they don't provide even close to half of its funding, while gun-owning members provide more than half.

Indeed, that would be inefficient when they can get members to do their dirty work for them.

You're literally saying that people acting in what they've each determined to be their own best interest, is in fact a giant behavioral control conspiracy. If the NRA's policies really were so out of line with the membership's desires, we wouldn't see the membership continue to increase. Your whole argument relies on the pretentious fallacy that people don't know what is best for themselves, but you do.

The judicious use of outright lies, such as the "they're coming to get your guns" narrative, also helps.

All but the last one of these is from THIS YEAR.

Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/its-hawaiis-proposed-guns-laws-that-are-criminal/123

New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/20/NY-Assemblyman-exposes-gun-confiscation-agenda-of-Democrats

Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/02/14/missouri-democrats-introduce-legislation-confiscate-firearms-gives-gun-owners-90-days-turn-weapons

VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/15/va-targeting-veterans-for-gun-confiscation/

NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."
http://www.politickernj.com/back_room/confiscate-confiscate-confiscate#

Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-grabber-has-meltdown-flees-public-affairs-forum-anger

Governor Cuomo says, "confiscation could be an option."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-option-eliana-johnson

Feinstein suggests "compulsory buyback."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648

CA assembly proposes confiscating 166,000 legally registered guns.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22544460/californias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun

And the classic from 1995:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoWE8v9QTOY

Not in so many words. But they have been targeted by the IRS and prohibited from attending public events because they don't agree with this administration.

If you view this post of his you will see that he apparently thinks Slashdot staff are NSA plants.

If you view this post of his you will see that he thinks various posters on Slashdot are NSA plants, including me. (You may want to read my reply to that post as well.) You may note that my account isn't from last month - his is actually newer than mine. I doubt that he has revealed everyone that he thinks is a plant.

For whatever it is worth to you, I certainly believe that the government can engage in illegal behavior, and various other forms of overreach and abuse. The IRS scandal in which the IRS admits to having engaged in conduct that is in essence the oppression of the ordinary political opposition to the current administration. That is unacceptable. On the other hand, I also think that preventing terrorist attacks against US citizens and those of America's allies, attacks that could kill thousands, is a good thing, as is the NSA surveillance of people in direct communication with terrorist groups. The law isn't necessarily what people think it is, or should be. I understand that leaves room for dispute. In any event, anachragnome can't abide my views, so obviously I must work for the government, not that you could prove that from my bank account.

They don't even need to ignore the FISA court orders; the court will give them practically anything they want, and have rubberstamped sweeping warrants in the past.

Your claim that the FISA court gives the government practically anything it wants is false. The FISA court has been very obstructionist in the past, and it is certainly willing to modify warrant requests, and does reject them on occasion - based on the merits of the application and the law.

It’S Legal - The solid legal basis for the administration's surveillance program. (Well worth the read.)

Why Bush Approved The Wiretaps - Not long ago, both parties agreed the FISA court was a problem

...Even later, after the provisions of the Patriot Act had had time to take effect, there were still problems with the FISA court–problems examined by members of the September 11 Commission–and questions about whether the court can deal effectively with the fastest-changing cases in the war on terror.

People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. “It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together,” says one source. “It’s not so much that the court doesn’t grant them quickly, it’s that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it’s still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check.” And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things

--------

You doubt that they have breached the constitution because you are a pro-government stooge.

I don't recall seeing stooge being used as a synonym for "well informed person" before. Your use of English is quite odd, as are your beliefs.

It’S Legal - The solid legal basis for the administration's surveillance program. (Well worth the read.)

... Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the “inherent authority” under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant–from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: “The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

--------

You're literally just an object to be ridiculed here. You might as well go somewhere where people are on the fence about issues such as these and try to brainwash them, because most people on Slashdot likely think you're just a joke.

As long as Slashdot continues to be a forum for free discussion I will be content to continue participating as my time and interests allow. I will continue to express my views, state facts, and provide data, even if it is unpopular. You should never confuse being popular with being right. Slashdot is more than the many people that post here, including those who are uninformed or confused,

They don't even need to ignore the FISA court orders; the court will give them practically anything they want, and have rubberstamped sweeping warrants in the past.

Your claim that the FISA court gives the government practically anything it wants is false. The FISA court has been very obstructionist in the past, and it is certainly willing to modify warrant requests, and does reject them on occasion - based on the merits of the application and the law.

It’S Legal - The solid legal basis for the administration's surveillance program. (Well worth the read.)

Why Bush Approved The Wiretaps - Not long ago, both parties agreed the FISA court was a problem

...Even later, after the provisions of the Patriot Act had had time to take effect, there were still problems with the FISA court–problems examined by members of the September 11 Commission–and questions about whether the court can deal effectively with the fastest-changing cases in the war on terror.

People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. “It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together,” says one source. “It’s not so much that the court doesn’t grant them quickly, it’s that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it’s still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check.” And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things

--------

You doubt that they have breached the constitution because you are a pro-government stooge.

I don't recall seeing stooge being used as a synonym for "well informed person" before. Your use of English is quite odd, as are your beliefs.

It’S Legal - The solid legal basis for the administration's surveillance program. (Well worth the read.)

... Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the “inherent authority” under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant–from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: “The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

--------

You're literally just an object to be ridiculed here. You might as well go somewhere where people are on the fence about issues such as these and try to brainwash them, because most people on Slashdot likely think you're just a joke.

As long as Slashdot continues to be a forum for free discussion I will be content to continue participating as my time and interests allow. I will continue to express my views, state facts, and provide data, even if it is unpopular. You should never confuse being popular with being right. Slashdot is more than the many people that post here, including those who are uninformed or confused,

They don't even need to ignore the FISA court orders; the court will give them practically anything they want, and have rubberstamped sweeping warrants in the past.

Your claim that the FISA court gives the government practically anything it wants is false. The FISA court has been very obstructionist in the past, and it is certainly willing to modify warrant requests, and does reject them on occasion - based on the merits of the application and the law.

It’S Legal - The solid legal basis for the administration's surveillance program. (Well worth the read.)

Why Bush Approved The Wiretaps - Not long ago, both parties agreed the FISA court was a problem

...Even later, after the provisions of the Patriot Act had had time to take effect, there were still problems with the FISA court–problems examined by members of the September 11 Commission–and questions about whether the court can deal effectively with the fastest-changing cases in the war on terror.

People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. “It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together,” says one source. “It’s not so much that the court doesn’t grant them quickly, it’s that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it’s still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check.” And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things

--------

You doubt that they have breached the constitution because you are a pro-government stooge.

I don't recall seeing stooge being used as a synonym for "well informed person" before. Your use of English is quite odd, as are your beliefs.

It’S Legal - The solid legal basis for the administration's surveillance program. (Well worth the read.)

... Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the “inherent authority” under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant–from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: “The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

--------

You're literally just an object to be ridiculed here. You might as well go somewhere where people are on the fence about issues such as these and try to brainwash them, because most people on Slashdot likely think you're just a joke.

As long as Slashdot continues to be a forum for free discussion I will be content to continue participating as my time and interests allow. I will continue to express my views, state facts, and provide data, even if it is unpopular. You should never confuse being popular with being right. Slashdot is more than the many people that post here, including those who are uninformed or confused,

A key paragraph in the article being this one:

Under the FAA, which was just renewed last December for another five years, no warrants are needed for the NSA to eavesdrop on a wide array of calls, emails and online chats involving US citizens. Individualized warrants are required only when the target of the surveillance is a US person or the call is entirely domestic. But even under the law, no individualized warrant is needed to listen in on the calls or read the emails of Americans when they communicate with a foreign national whom the NSA has targeted for surveillance.

If they are targeting a foreign national and listening to their communications, they don't need a warrant if you, an American, calls that person. It would be like the FBI conducting surveillance of a mob run business and having a warrant to tap its lines. It wouldn't need to get a warrant for each different caller so that it could listen to the conversation. That doesn't make a lot of sense, which is why Greenwald is up in arms about it.

And then there is this section:

...Contrary to the claims by NSA defenders that the surveillance being conducted is legal, the Obama DOJ has repeatedly thwarted any efforts to obtain judicial rulings on whether this law is consistent with the Fourth Amendment or otherwise legal....

There have been numerous court cases regarding even warrantless surveillance in particular circumstances. The courts have sided with the President's power to do this.

Surveillance Court Upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping

The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance — has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission.

Congress has no power to change the President's Constitutionally derived powers by ordinary law.

Greenwald is a smart man that leads many astray due to his fringe politics.

I regret to inform you that you don't know what you are talking about.

In their mind, Al Qaida is fighting on behalf of, and to reestablish, the Islamic Caliphate government that was dissolved in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman empire. The nonsense about "never been chosen to represent a nation of people" would make the silly claim that any modern insurgency to overthrow a government by violent means isn't really a war.

The "War on Terror" is symbolic language, just like the "War on Fascism" in WW2. It is ridiculous that supposedly educated people can't figure that out. The Authorization for Use of Military Force makes it clear who the US is fighting again, and that it is at war. It is well settled law that such an authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

You can tell al Qaida and the Taliban are not ordinary criminals since they actually ran the country of Afghanistan, and have been trying to overthrow several others. The 9/11 attack is the only time that the self-defense provision of the NATO treaty has been invoked following an attack. NATO aircraft flew over American cities to protect them. The Taliban and al Qaida use heavy weapons and have been organized at the brigade level. They are regularly engaged by the US Air Force which is targeting them with missiles and dropping large bombs upon them. This isn't a problem with traffic stops gone bad, or a gang of bank robbers, or even the Crips and the Bloods.

Bin Laden was an utter failure. He made the classic mistake of dictators and would-be dictators in attacking the United States. The additional cost of the war is a pittance in the total federal budget. His organization is very badly damaged. There has been little if any genuine loss of real freedom, and modest impositions on privacy. The true threats in terms of spending come from the enormous growth in social welfare programs, and the damaged economy which is exacerbated by the current administrations over-regulation.

You've got things almost entirely wrong. It doesn't help that you get your news and views from fringe sites. Maybe you should try a few different ones.

National Review
The Weekly Standard
PJ Media

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe. Rigged elections? Media that didn't inform the public what was going on? Warfare and bullying as a way of achieving the top dog's "national" goals?

The Russians, to their great credit, have made the old Soviet archives available to varying degrees over time. (Sometime more open, sometimes less open.) Although it was known before, the record has become ever clearer. Stalin, who lived into the 1950s, was a monster of epic proportions. After Stalin died, the Soviet state continued to be a police state, even if it relaxed somewhat at first, and more gradually over time. But it was, from start to finish, a totalitarian regime. It simply transformed from extremely oppressive and genocidal to not genocidal but still highly oppressive.

If you want to prove that there was no difference between the Soviet Union and the United States you will need to find tens of millions of bodies of ordinary Americans in mass graves in the United States of people killed by bullet or starvation and overwork in prison camps run by an American secret police that you will have to identify. Many people are misinformed on this matter. The media seldom carries stories on the Soviet Union any more. Although the lack of media reporting contributes to people being uninformed today, some of it is due to parts of the media establishment itself that tolerated reporters that were toadies to dictators, such as (the should be infamous) Walter Duranty: New York Times Concealed Ukrainian Genocide

It's understandable that the media seldom covers the Soviet Union any more since it is history, not news, and the Soviet Union has been gone for 22 years now. Although the lack of coverage about the behavior of the former Soviet Union might explain why people are uninformed, it doesn't explain why communism still holds an attraction for so man people. For that you have to understand that the human mind processes some things better than others, and some things badly. Communism is effectively a mind trap - the theory sounds so beautiful to many people that it must be true, but in practice it has always led to oppression, often bloody at that. And please spare me the "no true communist state has ever existed" routine. Dozens of nations have tried. It can't be done, but people will keep trying because the ideas won't die despite a century of bloody failure and misery in so many countries. There are still communists in America today. Communist parties and associated movements used to take their guidance from Moscow. Many leftists supported them, but never realized their fate should the communists come to power. ( Leftists Will be Shot in the U.S. When Marxists come to power- KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov ) Communism can't succeed because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and self-labeled scientific theories that are nonsense.

Here some resources if you want to know more (focusing mainly on the Soviet Union):

The Soviet Story (2008) Section in Soviet Story on the Soviet inflicted Ukrainian holocaust (only about 5 minutes in)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?

No. But it does equate to a double standard. A different standard is applied to Israel than to everyone else. What's worse is that the other Arab countries are treating their own people like shit.

Despite your flamebait moderation, you are essentially correct.

As far as a double standard against Israel, the UN is a great example of that.

From: Middle East Quarterly - Winter 2004
The Case for Israel

... The Case For Israel ... Dershowitz points out that a full 27 percent of the U.N.'s country-specific resolutions critical of a state have been directed against it. In contrast, no resolution in the history of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has condemned Syria, China, Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe, all of which are self-evidently far worse violators of human rights. Israel, asserts Dershowitz, has a "far better record on human rights than any other nation in the Middle East and most other nations in the world." As evidence, he notes that "Israel is the only nation in the world whose judiciary actively enforces the rule of law against its military during wartime" and that "Israel has killed fewer innocent civilians in proportion to the number of its own civilians killed than any country engaged in a comparable war."... The Case for Israel

Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War - Israel does not "deliberately" target civilians.

Regarding the mistreatment of Arabs by Arabs, two interesting cases that immediately come to mind:

Black September - In Context
Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about (Not for those of weak constitution. The SS had nothing on the Syrian Army.)

For some reason you never really hear about those. What makes it doubly interesting is that Black September was specifically against the Palestinian Arabs.

And the IRS was not politically targeting conservative groups.

Just to make sure everyone understands that is sarcasm:

Lawmakers say IRS targeted dozens more conservative groups than initially believed
A Frequent Visitor to the White House
Enemies List: IRS Wanted Names of Tea Party Members
What's going on between the IRS and True the Vote?
Criticism of IRS grows amid allegations of targeting beyond Tea Party
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

An identity that later won internal awards for ethics "scholar of ethical behavior.”

Of course this is also the administration who also was caught having visiting with lobbyists at a local Caribou coffee shop (ie secretly) instead of bringing them into the White House where they would show up in the visitor logs.

Most transparent administration evah eh?

Between the IRS targeting conservatives, a few officials being held in contempt of congress (and court), Obama sleeping on the job when his ambassador in Libya was killed, running guns to Mexican drug gangs, HHS seeking protection money from companies they are to regulate (and much much more)... this administration is destined to go down in history as even more corrupt than history has tried to paint Nixon.

I think you have this wrong. There are already ways for government officials that actually need it to get confidential information and candid opinions. This is something different. The point of transparency is to provide information on current government operations so that the public can provide feedback to the government, and so that voters can hold the government accountable. The benefit to historians is ancillary. There is no way now to provide feedback to the JFK and LBJ administrations, they are long gone. There is no way to improve their effectiveness. All that is left is the history. Voters need to be able to act every 1-4 years, depending on the office. The actions at EPA and other agencies clearly undermines providing that information and subverts accountability. Part of the reason this is occurring is that many people currently in government aren't separating there personal views from their government job and are illegitimately using their government position to engage in activism. That at least partially explains why the IRS is now involved in so many scandals for suppressing conservative political groups, conservative religious groups, Jewish groups, pro-life groups, and even adoptive parents. That also explains why they want to hide their tracks.

The second address is used to do actual work, not bypass any process.

Your first quote applies:

No. You're wrong. Actually, you're assumption is wrong.

E-mail Scandal at the EPA - The Obama administration embraces secrecy and stonewalling.

E-mail Scandal at the EPA - The Obama administration embraces secrecy and stonewalling.

Who is 'Richard Windsor'?

In The Liberal War on on Transparency, published by Threshold Editions last month, I revealed the existence of a series of black, or “alias” email accounts used by EPA administrators. These were actively instituted by none other than Carol Browner, who designed her own secret address, for an account that I also learned was set to “auto-delete”.

You remember Ms. Browner? She’s the lady who suddenly ordered her computer hard drive be reformatted and backup tapes be erased, just hours after a federal court issued a “preserve” order that her lawyers at the Clinton Justice Department insisted they hadn’t yet told her about? She’s the one who said it didn’t matter because she didn’t use her computer for email anyway? Yes, that one. . . more

E-mail Scandal at the EPA - The Obama administration embraces secrecy and stonewalling.

Who is 'Richard Windsor'?

In The Liberal War on on Transparency, published by Threshold Editions last month, I revealed the existence of a series of black, or “alias” email accounts used by EPA administrators. These were actively instituted by none other than Carol Browner, who designed her own secret address, for an account that I also learned was set to “auto-delete”.

You remember Ms. Browner? She’s the lady who suddenly ordered her computer hard drive be reformatted and backup tapes be erased, just hours after a federal court issued a “preserve” order that her lawyers at the Clinton Justice Department insisted they hadn’t yet told her about? She’s the one who said it didn’t matter because she didn’t use her computer for email anyway? Yes, that one. . . more

E-mail Scandal at the EPA - The Obama administration embraces secrecy and stonewalling.

Who is 'Richard Windsor'?

In The Liberal War on on Transparency, published by Threshold Editions last month, I revealed the existence of a series of black, or “alias” email accounts used by EPA administrators. These were actively instituted by none other than Carol Browner, who designed her own secret address, for an account that I also learned was set to “auto-delete”.

You remember Ms. Browner? She’s the lady who suddenly ordered her computer hard drive be reformatted and backup tapes be erased, just hours after a federal court issued a “preserve” order that her lawyers at the Clinton Justice Department insisted they hadn’t yet told her about? She’s the one who said it didn’t matter because she didn’t use her computer for email anyway? Yes, that one. . . more

Assuming you aren't going for sarcasm or irony given that the New York Times has generally been fans of the Obama administration and provided what could be called "friendly" coverage (although it may be more apt to describe it in military terms as "covering fire")...

IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups During 2012 Election
Medical Firm Sues IRS For 4th Amendment Violation In Records Seizure
US Government Monitoring Associated Press Phone Records

www.irs.gov - Tax collectors
www.justice.gov - Department of Justice

Good general resource for more info: National Review & the Weekly Standard.

You clearly have no idea what "the full force of government to stifle opposition" actually looks like, and for all our sakes, I sincerely hope you never find out.

I think you could say the "consommé" version of that sort of "feast" enjoyed in truly oppressive regimes, such as under Stalin, is being served now to conservatives of various flavours in the United States. That is still not acceptable. The IRS has admitted it was out of line, but they may not be the only ones involved.

What's going on between the IRS and True the Vote?

But Engelbrecht's attorney, Cleta Mitchell, says it's not just the Democratic Party that went after the conservative causes, but also the federal government. Within months of the groups filing for tax-exempt status, Engelbrecht claims she started getting hit by an onslaught of harassment: six FBI domestic terrorism inquiries, an IRS visit, two IRS business audits, two IRS personal audits, and inspections of her equipment manufacturing company by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Texas environmental quality officials.

Taken alone, any of the visits and actions might seem perfectly reasonable. But Engelbrecht and her lawyer says it's the pattern and the timing of the attention paid to Engelbrecht's interests that led them to conclude something was amiss...

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

IRS may have looked beyond 'tea party' and 'patriots'

So far it looks like it may have been as many as 500-600 conservative groups. This is not good, at all. Some of what has been going on is way beyond acceptable for government behavior in the United States, or the West in general today.

We don't have to get to Stalin / Mao / Pol Pot bad to say things have gone too far. Even the totalitarian regimes they headed didn't want to repeat the experience again.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There's lots more where that story came from.

You know, until that happened, you'd just be a tin-foil hat wearer, without a shred of credibility to you. Actually, you still are. But thanks to the colossal mistake of a couple of people in the IRS and Obama's total and complete inability to deal with a scandal, that singular act has managed to make the tinfoil hat crowd look more credible than the government.

Well, you know what, okay. Out of the thousands of times Obama and the "rabid liberals" have gotten it right, after six years of constant, sustained, unending attempts by the Republicans to find something, anything, to sink Obama even if it means repeatedly punching themselves in the face (Comeon guys, with all the major issues out there, your party platform for the previous four years has been trying to ensure Obama didn't get re-elected. Petty much?)... I suppose yes, with that much scrutiny eventually something had to pan out.

So take this one, singular victory. Have it, it's yours. You can feel righteous for a bit now -- you have a right to be upset

Well, that's mighty white of you. You are indeed a generous spirit.

True Scandal - A tea-party group ... gets attention from the IRS—and the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF.
The IRS Fiasco Is Only The Tip Of The Iceberg
A Frequent Visitor to the White House

...Douglas Shulman, Commissioner from 2008 to 2012, during the Obama administration, visited the White House 118 times just in 2010 and 2011. His successor, Steven Miller, also visited “numerous” times.

Lawmakers say IRS targeted dozens more conservative groups than initially believed

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency

IRS Admits Targeting “Tea Party” Groups
The New Nixon This time, the press cheered as the IRS investigated the president's opponents.
Tea party groups call IRS process 'nightmare'
IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo
Curious IRS Timing - Did the tax agency also target groups that support Israel?
Obamacare + IRS = gangster government
7 Questions That The IRS Inappropriately Asked Of Tea Party Groups
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting - An apology, but no explanation
Did The IRS Try To Swing Election To Obama?

Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert

You know, until that happened, you'd just be a tin-foil hat wearer, without a shred of credibility to you. Actually, you still are. But thanks to the colossal mistake of a couple of people in the IRS and Obama's total and complete inability to deal with a scandal, that singular act has managed to make the tinfoil hat crowd look more credible than the government.

Well, you know what, okay. Out of the thousands of times Obama and the "rabid liberals" have gotten it right, after six years of constant, sustained, unending attempts by the Republicans to find something, anything, to sink Obama even if it means repeatedly punching themselves in the face (Comeon guys, with all the major issues out there, your party platform for the previous four years has been trying to ensure Obama didn't get re-elected. Petty much?)... I suppose yes, with that much scrutiny eventually something had to pan out.

So take this one, singular victory. Have it, it's yours. You can feel righteous for a bit now -- you have a right to be upset

Well, that's mighty white of you. You are indeed a generous spirit.

True Scandal - A tea-party group ... gets attention from the IRS—and the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF.
The IRS Fiasco Is Only The Tip Of The Iceberg
A Frequent Visitor to the White House

...Douglas Shulman, Commissioner from 2008 to 2012, during the Obama administration, visited the White House 118 times just in 2010 and 2011. His successor, Steven Miller, also visited “numerous” times.

Lawmakers say IRS targeted dozens more conservative groups than initially believed

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency

IRS Admits Targeting “Tea Party” Groups
The New Nixon This time, the press cheered as the IRS investigated the president's opponents.
Tea party groups call IRS process 'nightmare'
IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo
Curious IRS Timing - Did the tax agency also target groups that support Israel?
Obamacare + IRS = gangster government
7 Questions That The IRS Inappropriately Asked Of Tea Party Groups
The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting - An apology, but no explanation
Did The IRS Try To Swing Election To Obama?

Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert

The exact phrase I used was: "would be genocidal Iranian regime"

Evidence?

UN chief denounces Iran to its face over calls to destroy Israel
Iran Steps Up Threats to Rub Out Israel

At present they lack the means, such as working nuclear weapons, not the desire. I have to say that I find it astonishing that this might somehow be news to you. It is a fairly widely held goal in the region.

The Jews Were Brought to Palestine for the Great Massacre
Hamas video: Killing Jews is 'worship that draws us close to Allah'
Judgment Day - When the Muslims Kill the Jews

After all, the book by you-know-who is disgustingly popular in certain circles among kindred spirits.

Cut-rate 'Mein Kampf' sells well in Turkey, spurring concerns
Mein Kampf in pride of place on bookshop shelves
Their Kampf - Hitler’s book in Arab hands

Unrelated, but since I have your attention - I expect these topics percolate at the back of your mind:

Jenin: Palestinian Myth Machine
Goldstone: Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War

The exact phrase I used was: "would be genocidal Iranian regime"

Evidence?

UN chief denounces Iran to its face over calls to destroy Israel
Iran Steps Up Threats to Rub Out Israel

At present they lack the means, such as working nuclear weapons, not the desire. I have to say that I find it astonishing that this might somehow be news to you. It is a fairly widely held goal in the region.

The Jews Were Brought to Palestine for the Great Massacre
Hamas video: Killing Jews is 'worship that draws us close to Allah'
Judgment Day - When the Muslims Kill the Jews

After all, the book by you-know-who is disgustingly popular in certain circles among kindred spirits.

Cut-rate 'Mein Kampf' sells well in Turkey, spurring concerns
Mein Kampf in pride of place on bookshop shelves
Their Kampf - Hitler’s book in Arab hands

Unrelated, but since I have your attention - I expect these topics percolate at the back of your mind:

Jenin: Palestinian Myth Machine
Goldstone: Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War

It may have worked for you for a long time but the world is slowly awakening to just how evil the behaviour of Israel is.

Given your views, you should probably hope that the world isn't awakening to evil behavior, otherwise the there some unexpected drubbings that are going to be handed out.

Palestinians Celebrate after Brutal Murder of Fogel Family
The Jews Were Brought to Palestine for the Great Massacre
Palestinian Myth Machine
Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War
Goldstone: You Cannon Undo a Slander
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
Why the al-Dura Blood Libel Still Matters

Yes, much of the world joins to condemn Israel, often based on lies, but either passes in silence over true horrors of the genuine mass murdering regimes in the Middle East, or actually defends the real butchers.

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about
Commentary: Remembering Iraq's mass graves

What happened to Iraq's 'human shields'?

If Israel was only as evil as Iraq or Syria, the Paelstinians would have disappeared into mass graves long ago. That clearly hasn't happened.

It may have worked for you for a long time but the world is slowly awakening to just how evil the behaviour of Israel is.

Given your views, you should probably hope that the world isn't awakening to evil behavior, otherwise the there some unexpected drubbings that are going to be handed out.

Palestinians Celebrate after Brutal Murder of Fogel Family
The Jews Were Brought to Palestine for the Great Massacre
Palestinian Myth Machine
Fighting the Lies Harder Than Fighting the War
Goldstone: You Cannon Undo a Slander
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
Why the al-Dura Blood Libel Still Matters

Yes, much of the world joins to condemn Israel, often based on lies, but either passes in silence over true horrors of the genuine mass murdering regimes in the Middle East, or actually defends the real butchers.

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about
Commentary: Remembering Iraq's mass graves

What happened to Iraq's 'human shields'?

If Israel was only as evil as Iraq or Syria, the Paelstinians would have disappeared into mass graves long ago. That clearly hasn't happened.

You also realize that Israel continues to be one of the most negatively viewed countries in the world according to a BBC World Service poll [bbc.co.uk], so you can cry all you want but when so many people dislike a country over so many years, something's wrong with that country and not the people.

The problem in those people's eyes is easy to identify: Israel is full of Jews. That is a huge problem for some people. It is sort of like the problem that many Germans had with Jews in the 1920s-1940s.

And don't overlook the fact that the reading tastes are similar:

Cut-rate 'Mein Kampf' sells well in Turkey, spurring concerns
Mein Kampf in pride of place on bookshop shelves
Their Kampf - Hitler’s book in Arab hands.

They both exist to keep deranged Wingnuts angry and stupid so they don't wise up and turn back into Conservatives..

Apparently they succeeded. ;D

But, just for fun, here are some more links.

A Timeline Of The IRS's Scrutiny Of The Right

2011

Dec. 16: Despite being briefed about the matter six months earlier, Lerner does not divulge the flagging of conservative groups when she and others from the IRS meet staff members of the House Ways and Means Committee to discuss the issue, according to the staff's timeline of events.

Tea party groups call IRS process 'nightmare'
Higher-Ups Knew of IRS Case
Reality Check Exclusive: Cincinnati agent giving orders in IRS scandal?
It Didn’t End - The IRS is still stringing conservative groups along

Now I'm curious though, when were you last conservative?

It's just that even more than a cursory examination of these "scandals" reveals them to either be normal function of government misconstrued as a crime or a legitimate problem bent completely out of factual frame of reference in order to blame the president.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "The buck stops here"? The idea is that the President is the top guy, and is responsible for everything.

For example, in the aftermath of Hurricaine Katrina, just about the entire news media held George W. Bush personally responsible for the failures of FEMA, because Bush was the President.

There are two possibilities here. Either Mr. Obama knew and approved of the IRS actions, or he didn't. The former means he is a crooked politician, and the latter means he does not have full control of the machinery of government. If you are a fan of Mr. Obama, you better hope it's the latter. (And if you blamed W for Katrina, I hope you also blame Mr. Obama for the IRS scandal; fair is fair.)

So, when I say the government is far too big and needs to be trimmed way the hell down, will you tell me I am "paranoid" for worrying that government will get out of control?

As to the entire rest of your post, I can't imagine the level of self-awareness you must lack to write all that in the context of discussing paranoia and not recognize it as such. There is almost nothing there but conspiracy theories unbacked by evidence.

IRS evidence (citations from IG report, ProPublica, USA Today... and a Jon Stewart Daily Show clip)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348410/tea-party-irs-scandal-facebook-faq

IRS asked a group to publish the contents of their prayers (freedom of speech? separation of church and state?)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/irs-conservative-group-2009-members-pray-193833144.html

Discussion of possible union connection.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking

Wikipedia discussion of Wide Receiver and FaF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#Operation_Wide_Receiver

Inspector General's report on Fast and Furious.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/testimony/t1220.pdf

So now, your turn. What is your explanation for the difference between Wide Receiver and FaF? (If you are going to say "they were the same" then go read that IG report and try again.) Please tell me some theory as to why guns were allowed to walk with absolutely no attempts to track them and without warning the Mexican authorities that this was going to happen.

I'm afraid you don't really understand politics in the US, it isn't like Germany, the UK, or Sweden. Party discipline isn't really practiced in the same way. American parties still have different ideological wings, although they are withered compared to what they were 30-40 years ago.

There certainly are hard leftists in the US, including real honest-to-Marx-and-Lenin communists. The difference is that in the US, there is very little support for them for elected office if the voters understand that is who is running. As a result, those on the far left rhetorically camouflage themselves with more moderate labels to merge with the established moderate left.

President Obama, who is clearly a man of the left, gained office by regular election, not revolution or coup. As such he is limited to working within the system, and there is very little appetite in the US for open socialism, beyond a point, or communism. So, even if he is, hypothetically speaking, a man of the hard left, many of America's institutions and values are center/center-right. US institutions can't be decreed away, but must be incrementally voted away, and regulated away, until more substantial change is possible.

I have little doubt President Obama means well, and is doing what he thinks is in the best interests of the US. I just don't believe he is correct in his belief.

Maybe you've heard of Bill Ayers, someone that helped Barack Obama on this way politically? Here is some information you might find interesting from his days in the Weather Underground.

William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire

Undercover agent Larry Grathwohl, who had infiltrated and joined the Weather Underground, described their post-revolution governing plans for the United States in this video taken from the 1982 documentary "No Place to Hide." The Weather Underground openly discussed exterminating 25 million Americans who refused to be "re-educated" into communism.

Here's a transcript of his interview:

I bought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. We, we become responsible, then, for administrating, you know, 250 million people.

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics; how are you going to clothe and feed these people.

The only thing that I could get, was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the southwest, where we would take all the people who needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them... how things were going to be.

I asked, well, what's going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.

The US doesn't merely have a hard left, it has a hard left that would fit right into a Stalinist or Pol Pot regime.

Allegations are cheap. Facts are more worthwhile.

What Really Happened in the U.S. Attorneys Mess

Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush's 8

Oh, it's more than that. The IRS is the key enforcer for the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Your Next IRS Political Audit - The tax agency is getting vast new power in health care
The IRS Is Accessing Your Health Records. You Trust Them?

The US Government needs to get the problems at that agency fixed, now. Between this and the suppression of political groups going on, this is intollerable and undemocratic. What did Franklin say? A Republic, if you can keep it?

The IRS’s Curious Immunity - It’s worse than the PATRIOT Act.

there should be no worries about medical records being leaked and/or used against individuals or organizations since the IRS will keep those safe for all of us.

No, the ACA does not allow the IRS to access your medical records.

They're so eager to begin, they simply walked in and seized without explanation approximately *sixty million* medical records in California

The allegation is that they exceeded the authority of a warrant and demanded copies of servers containing records for ten million people from an unnamed company. Is it true? Neither you nor I know. But the suit is unrelated to the ACA.

I don't begrudge them anything, but they are seriously in outer space.

That can happen when you rise to the heights of power in politics, or stand on really large mountains of cash in industry, or take up residence in much of academia.

If, as even the Democrats admit, the government is "too vast" for the President to be responsible, we ought to be shrinking it, rather than continue its expansion to the new domains (like, uh, healthcare)...