A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

The End of "Rule of Law" in America

Saturday, July 13, 2013

The Democrats' refusal to enforce the rule of law (an extraordinary admission by Pelosi a couple of weeks ago, particularly as she admitted it as the reason that Republicans shouldn't uphold rule of law by holding Holder in contempt - "Nancy Pelosi Slams Contempt Vote: 'I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove ... But We Didn't') is now a bipartisan agreement that we're no longer a nation of laws.

At the very root of our problems are Constituti­onal crises created by, first, Republican presidents and now under a Democratic president.  Republican­s' utter contempt for the Constituti­on and callous disregard for creating them caused by Democrats' cowering response is what underpins all of our problems and what's destroying the country.

As President, you've got to really want the U.S. to work, to exist, to not exploit the loopholes in the Constituti­on that keep our three-bran­ches of government precarious­ly balancing the democracy.  But Bush-Cheney drove tanks through the loopholes, breaking the law and with no apparent concern for exposing the loopholes nor any consequenc­es.

Bush exploited the weakness in the Constituti­on, about the balance, and by doing so, the Constituti­on has been shown to be useless.  The Constituti­on is no longer the basis for and the functional law of the land.  The Constitution is no longer much respected in Congress, the Executive branch, the Supreme Cou­rt, nor in law or business.

 Bush wasn't the first to create Constituti­onal crises, but he created more of them, eviscerati­ng the Constituti­on for all time. How do you go forward with it when its Achilles' heel has been laid bare for any Bush-Cheney wannabe waiting in the weeds to exploit?  What's now happened in the aftermath of Bush-Cheney is that what Nixon did has been made legal. Once Bush-Cheney happened, once they exploited those loopholes for everyone to see, you can't just go on as if it never happened.  You can't "look forward, not back".

The situation might have been remedied had Democrats and Obama come into office investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the Bush administra­tion and restoring the 'rule of law'.  BushCheney exploited the inherent weaknesses in the Constituti­on:  A precarious balance of power between the three branches of government­.  But Obama refused, and has continued the Bush-Cheney disregard of the Constituti­on, even going beyond Bush-Cheney abuses.

 We got off on a wrong turn in this country, not just once but at many important junctions throughout our 200 plus years, but never always with the possibility of enough lead time to rectify and change course.  When it comes to a Supreme Court decision, some say, "Oh it's not a big deal, it's just one decision, unlikely to affect much." That one decision, Bush v. Gore, has set the course for the demise of human civilization on the planet within my children's lifetime.  By giving the election to Bush and Cheney with all the power that went with it, a set of actions have been put into place which spell the end game for ecosystems around the world as well as political systems.

If it sounds like I'm speaking in extremes, apocalyptic, yes, I am.  The extremes were are facing include monetary (another worldwide Great Depression, beyond the last one because the planet doesn't have the raw materials to build on like the last one), energy that is too dangerous to handle (nuclear and gasoline, destroying the environment and making it impossible for humans to survive), extreme weather, food and water shortages, pandemic diseases, anarchy in the streets.

When you don't right the wrongs in history, they have a funny way of coming back to cause mayhem all over again.

The Bushes, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, et al, all happened because Nixon was pardoned, not tried.  Had Clinton investigated and prosecuted George H.W. Bush over Iran-Contra, his son and Dick Cheney never would have gotten into the White House.  Jeb Bush and Liz Cheney would never have the political futures like the ones they're about to have because Obama decided to "look forward, not back".

With investigations and transparency, the CIA (and the latest revelations about the NSA) would have been dismantled, the buildings burned to ashes and the ground upon which it stood salted.  Instead, this is our future - “The Lily-Pad Strategy: How the Pentagon is Quietly Transforming Its Overseas Base Empire and Creating a Dangerous New Way of War” and it's making us more loathed and unsafe than any time in our history. 

Read more...

Joe Biden Asks Ecuador To Turn Down Edward Snowden Asylum Request

Monday, July 1, 2013


Look, you sound like the typical rightwinger who are trying to create their scandal theories. thanks for your opinions, but they are totally irrelevent. i don't believe a word of it. So, you can tell it to the rest of your teapub pals....

======================

I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat.  I've never voted for a Republican, never will, but I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.  There is NOTHING that Republicans have managed to do in the last forty years that wasn't done with Democrats coming on board.  When Democratic politicians' and Obama's 'most ardent fans' talk about voting for him/them because he and they are "the lesser evil", I ask "On what issue?"

When women can no longer get an abortion in 92% of the counties in the US, what difference does it make which party is in power?  Those who are past menopause or can afford to send our daughters and granddaughters to Paris for an abortion.    

When Obama and Democrats practice Republican foreign policy (expanding wars and codifying neverending war in which to justify removing Americans' Constitutional rights, etc.), what difference does it make which party is in power?

When Tim Geithner/Henry Paulson or some other Wall Streeter would be the Treasury Secretary under either a Republican or Democratic president, what difference does it make which party is in power?

When neither party has on its agenda getting money out of politics, eliminating corporate personhood, publicly funding elections, etc., then both parties are protecting the status quo.

When both parties kick "hot potato" issues that are wrecking the lives or ordinary people down the road or to the states or to the courts yet always manage to meet corporate lobbyists' demands, it really doesn't matter which party gets into power.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Joe Biden Asks Ecuador To Turn Down Edward Snowden Asylum Request

Sunday, June 30, 2013


Actually, the NSA is a criminal operation.  As far as it stopping "over twenty terrorist attacks around the world", there's some discrepancy about that.  Not just the number, or if any, but whether good old-fashioned detective work would have succeeded.  We know for certain that the Boston Marathon bombing was yet another failure by our government to prevent what was preventable.

Unlike you, I'm a patriotic American unconstrained by allegiance to one political party over another.  Your "Democrats = Good, Republicans = Bad" mentality seems to keep you locked into the 'Forever War' mind-set launched by Cheney- Bush and continuing under Obama.  Anyone still believing it's a "my team versus your team" (Republica­n versus Democrat) thing has his head up his rectvm.  

D & R poIitician­s are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be.  Like Coke and Pepsi are enemies until they have to put someone out of business.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their CorporateM­asters.  They're all just career politician­s, not wedded to a particular ideologica­l perspectiv­e but "getting a deal and then selling, spinning it, crafting a sales pitch to constituen­ts that it's great".  

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufactur­ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball.  One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, then continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, when the People start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

NSA Slides Explain The PRISM Data-Collection Program


I agree.  They're even implementing that old favorite of totalitarian states, "Get people to inform on each other."  I think that one goes back to the Roman empire, when the Romans didn't have enough Romans to police the people in the other countries they occupied they rewarded foreign civilians who informed on their friends, families and neighbors.  And variations on that theme - Instead of repealing the Patriot Act and dismantling the FISA courts and the NSA, the NSA is instituting a 'buddy system' to prevent a repeat of Edward Snowden.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Joe Biden Asks Ecuador To Turn Down Edward Snowden Asylum Request


If snowden, assange or marcospinelli want to spin the idea that the US is more intrusive

====================

When I (or Snowden and Assange) try to make that argument, we'll talk.  Until then, please don't try to misdirect attention.  Aren't we supposed to be better than Russia and China and Ecuador anyway?  That was a rhetorical question; let's not waste people's time and attention arguing it.  What the NSA is up to is both illegal and unConstitutional.  The people of Russia, China and Ecuador can deal with whatever illegal and unConstitutional violations by their governments.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Joe Biden Asks Ecuador To Turn Down Edward Snowden Asylum Request


By the way, genius, when you attempt to use a French word like "voila", you need to figure out how to spell it correctly so you won't  make such a fool of yourself by spelling it "walla"! What a hilarious spelling by a semi-literate schlemiel!! LOL!


=========================

The light blue colored text means that it's a hyperlink.  Click on it and you'll discover that it's not my words and spelling you're ridiculing, but someone else's.  How classy of you.  Not.  Do you try to humiliate people who lisp or walk with a limp, too?


Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Joe Biden Asks Ecuador To Turn Down Edward Snowden Asylum Request

Saturday, June 29, 2013


 

The administration hides the extent of its “incidental” surveillance of Americans behind fuzzy language. When Congress reauthorized the law at the end of 2012, legislators said Americans had nothing to worry about because the surveillance could not “target” American citizens or permanent residents. Mr. Clapper offered the same assurances. Based on these statements, an ordinary citizen might think the N.S.A. cannot read Americans’ e-mails or online chats under the F.A.A. But that is a government ­fed misunderstanding.

A “target” under the act is a person or entity the government wants information on — not the people the government is trying to listen to. It’s actually O.K. under the act to grab Americans’ messages so long as they are communicating with the target, or anyone who is not in the United States.

Leave aside the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act for a moment, and turn to the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment obliges the government to demonstrate probable cause before conducting invasive surveillance. There is simply no precedent under the Constitution for the government’s seizing such vast amounts of revealing data on innocent Americans’ communications.

The government has made a mockery of that protection by relying on select Supreme Court cases, decided before the era of the public Internet and cellphones, to argue that citizens have no expectation of privacy in either phone metadata or in e-mails or other private electronic messages that it stores with third parties.

This hairsplitting is inimical to privacy and contrary to what at least five justices ruled just last year in a case called United States v. Jones. One of the most conservative justices on the Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote that where even public information about individuals is monitored over the long term, at some point, government crosses a line and must comply with the protections of the Fourth Amendment. That principle is, if anything, even more true for Americans’ sensitive non-public information like phone metadata and social networking activity.

We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP