Hillary Clinton’s Continuity Government Versus Elizabeth Warren’s Voice for Change

The contrast between Wall Street’s continuity government in Washington under another Clinton in the White House and the charismatic populist voice of Senator Elizabeth Warren as she stumps for Democrats in the midterms, is awakening millions of Americans to the idea that there may be choices after all in the 2016 presidential election.
Columnist Eugene Robinson said it best last Monday in the Washington Post, writing that Senator Warren’s ‘swing through Colorado, Minnesota and Iowa to rally the faithful displayed something no other potential contender for the 2016 presidential nomination, including Hillary Clinton, seems able to present: a message.’
What Robinson really means is ‘a message of hope’ – that Wall Street’s wealth transfer system, institutionalized under a protection racket by members of Congress who keep their seats using Wall Street’s campaign dough, could come under serious challenge with Warren in the White House.
In a Wall Street Journal article last Friday, Peter Nicholas reports that Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and a large donor to Democrats, summed up Hillary as follows: ‘I see Hillary as part of the middle-of-the-road mainstream government that is essentially in bed with these corporations.’
Where would such an idea come from? The Center for Responsive Politics reports thatfour of the top six donors to Hillary’s failed bid to capture the Democratic nod for the Presidency in 2008 were employees, family members or PACs of major Wall Street firms: JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.

This post was published at Wall Street On Parade By Pam Martens and Russ Marte.

The Democrats Have Begun to Move Against the Web: No More Unregulated Political Ads

It’s desperation time!
A Democrat on the Federal Elections Commission has moved to regulate unpaid political ads on the Web. The FEC already regulates paid ads. This would mean that sites could no longer link to free political ads unless they show ‘balance.’
Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. ‘A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,’ she said.
Why is this important? Because it is a clear admission that the Democrats know they are losing the media wars where it counts most: the World Wide Web.
This is a desperation move. It is not being launched in Congress, where it has no chance of getting through the House. It is coming from inside the executive: an almost unregulated bureaucracy.
What triggered this?

This post was published at Tea Party Economist on October 25, 2014.


Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano hit out at the President this week over revelations that the Obama administration is overseeing a federal order for 34 million blank work permits and green cards, an indication that Obama is set to issue an executive order on amnesty after the midterm election.
Speaking on Fox News, the libertarian analyst said ‘He can’t make illegals legal. But he can do the following: he can open the borders, arguably he did that a few months ago with the Central American children in Texas; he can issue green cards to whoever he wants; he can stop deportations for the rest of his presidency.’
‘…both Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses have given to Republican and Democratic presidents extraordinary authority.’ Napolitano clarified.
The order for the blank cards, to be delivered over the course of five years, was actioned by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) department, which posted a draft solicitation earlier this month announcing its intention to seek a vendor capable of delivering ‘an estimated 4 million cards annually with the potential to buy as many as 34 million cards total.’

This post was published at Info Wars on OCTOBER 24, 2014.

Public Accommodation and Social Engineering

Last weekend, city officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho ordered the owners of a local wedding chapel to conduct same-sex marriages or face jail time. One-hundred-and-eighty days of jail time, to be exact, plus a $1,000 fine for each day they continue to decline.
The chapel’s owners, ordained ministers, are suing on the grounds of religious freedom, saying the mandate forces them to contradict their religious beliefs.
But while the religious freedom perspective on this dispute is probably better for the chapel’s public relations, this issue is just as much economic as religious. Without the specious concept of ‘public accommodation,’ disputes like this wouldn’t arise. Only because this category is accepted in the first place can the courts find justification for forcing vendors to service the demands of customers in ways that defy their religious convictions.
Public Accommodation
According to Congress, ‘public accommodations’ are businesses and facilities open to the general public. The idea first made its way into American law by way of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II of that Act prohibits discrimination in places of ‘public accommodation.’ Specifically, the law reads:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on Friday, October 24, 2014.

Don’t Blame Obama (He Has No Power)

The genius H. L. Mencken put it best when he wrote that ‘every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.’
We also like the one from P. J. O’Rourke, who wrote…
‘Don’t vote! It just encourages the bastards.’
And we can’t forget Twain’s pithy observation…
‘If voting made a difference,’ he said, ‘they wouldn’t let us do it.’
Until now, this area of debate has been reserved only for the fringes. The question of whether or not to vote, that is. Or if voting is actually effective in changing governmental policy (the answer? No).
As you’ll see in a moment, though, this debate is slipping into the mainstream. And in a very big way.
To begin, let’s rewind six years…
‘The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes,’ The Boston Globe article begins.
‘From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
‘But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.’
‘It has long been the province of conspiracy theorists,’ Mickey Edwards writes in a separate article in the Globe, ‘to claim that the real power of government is not wielded by the obvious practitioners of statecraft – presidents, members of Congress, the judiciary – but by secret or semi-secret entities, real wizards whose hidden machinations send us to war, sell us out to enemies, siphon public treasure into private hands.
‘Depending on your talk show or paranoia of choice, these are the bankers, oil barons, one-worlders, war profiteers, Bilderbergers, Masons, Catholics, Jews, or Trilateralists. Our formal institutions, in this scenario, are stage sets, Potemkin villages; our officials are puppets; we are an unsuspecting audience.’
Yes, there are countless ways to say the government is corrupt.
But here’s the thing…
At their core, all these theories have a ‘shadow government’ of sorts running things behind the scenes.
And, according to one highly regarded professor, that might not be too far from reality.

This post was published at Laissez Faire on OCT 23, 2014.

IRS Stonewaller Lerner’s Emails Are Not Lost, Say Government Lawyers

Government lawyers have told a watchdog group suing over the Internal Revenue Service scandal that Lois Lerner’s emails aren’t missing after all.
Attorneys for the Justice Department surprised Judicial Watch, a right-leaning watchdog group, on Friday by saying that they have copies of every electronic message ever sent from Lerner, a former top IRS official who is a key figure in a targeting scandal involving conservative groups that sought tax-exempt status.
The IRS told Congress that thousands of Lerner’s emails sent prior to 2011 were hopelessly lost thanks to a hard drive crash that left the data unrecoverable.

This post was published at Tea Party Economist on October 22, 2014.


People in the US and around the world are slowly figuring out that their systems are not “their” systems but systems placed over them to control and steal from them. Slowly the Republican versus Democrat debate in the US is being seen more and more as a farce. The savior, Barack Obama, is sitting at record low approval ratings, Congress approval ratings were in the single digits for much of the last year, the End the Fed movement continues to grow, support for the war of the month (ISIS) has fallen dramatically in just the last few weeks and mainstream news media ratings continue to drop off a cliff.
The grand majority still don’t see the full extent of the problem. Many figure these systems just need to be “fixed” but the point they are missing, and will soon realize, is that the political, financial, monetary and central banking systems themselves are inherently anti-freedom and anti-prosperity. Unfortunately, many won’t realize it until they’ve all collapsed.
In the meantime libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and Austrian economics are growing in popularity worldwide. While still relatively small they are growing nearly exponentially as the internet gives people access to information they have been shielded from for decades if not centuries or millennia.

This post was published at Dollar Vigilante on October 21st, 2014.

Keiser Report: Horror of Apocalypse Now (E669)

The following video was published by RT on Oct 21, 2014
In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss the horror, the horror of the apocalyptic scenes that central bankers have wrought upon the innocent and the deranged alike. This apocalyptic aftermath of meeting the Colonely Kurtz like central bankers is an economy in which the under-30s are left behind and the pauperization of workers through inflation. They also look at the testimony in the lawsuit by Maurice ‘Hank’ Greenberg in which it was revealed that then Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson lied to Congress! In the second half, Max interviews Mitch Feierstein of PlanetPonzi.com about how democracy has been vaporised in the UK and the result is the falling wages which have led to protests in the streets of London.

65% of Americans Say the Nation is on the Wrong Track

A Wall Street Journal poll reveals that only 25% of Americans think the nation is on the right track – the lowest since 2008. Two-thirds say we are on the wrong track.
As always, the economy is the main concern. But we are five years into a recovery. That is what we are told. So, where is the optimism?
Foreign policy? Drift. Immigration? Drift. Economy? Stagnant wages. Congress? Gridlock. Federal deficit? It is still reported at $500 billion a year, five years into the recovery. This is hailed by Keynesians as a major victory.
Then there are ISIS and Ebola. What happened to safety? Where is there a sign of leadership?
The public schools always get worse. No one expects differently any longer. It’s only a matter of how bad they will get in your ZIP code, and how soon. Yet here is America’s only tax-funded church, with its own self-screening priesthood: the American Federation of Teachers.
What does the state do that is seen as a clear benefit, with better to come? This is the key phrase: ‘with better to come.’ Nothing, i.e., not one thing.

This post was published at Tea Party Economist on October 21, 2014.

Poor Ron Paul …

Creating Enemies Everywhere Over the weekend, we were down in Nashville at the Stansberry Conference Series event, along with Ron Paul, Porter Stansberry, Jim Rickards and others. The question on the table: What’s ahead for the US?
Ron Paul took up the question from a geopolitical angle. He told the crowd that the military-security industry had Congress in its pocket.
As a result, we can expect more borrowing, more spending and more pointless and futile wars. They may be bad for the country and its citizens, says Paul, but they are good for the people who make fighter jets and combat fatigues.
‘We’ve been at war in the Middle East for decades,’ he said. ‘We supported Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan… and the result of that was the creation of al-Qaeda.
‘Then we supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Saddam and bin Laden hated each other. But after 9/11 we attacked Saddam, using a bunch of lies to justify it. We sent over military equipment worth hundreds of billions of dollars. This equipment is now in the hands of ISIS – another enemy we created… and a far more dangerous one.’
ISIS fighters proudly parading their new Hummer courtesy of US tax cows …
(Photo credit: REUTERS/Stringer)

This post was published at Acting-Man on October 21, 2014.

National Service is Anti-Liberty and Un-American

Former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently called on the government to force young people to spend two years either ‘serving’ in the military or performing some other type of government-directed ‘community service.’ Neoconservative Senator John McCain has introduced legislation creating a mandatory national service program very similar to Reich’s proposal. It is not surprising that both a prominent progressive and a leading neocon would support mandatory national service, as this is an issue that has long united authoritarians on the left and right.
Proponents of national service claim that young people have a moral obligation to give something back to society. But giving the government power to decide our moral obligations is an invitation to totalitarianism.
Mandatory national service is not just anti-liberty, it is un-American. Whether or not they admit it, supporters of mandatory national service do not believe that individuals have ‘inalienable rights.’ Instead, they believe that rights are gifts from the government, and, since government is the source of our rights, government can abridge or even take away those rights whenever Congress decides.
Mandatory national service also undermines private charitable institutions. In a free society, many people will give their time or money to service projects to help better their communities, working with religious or civic associations. But in a society with government-enforced national service, these associations are likely to become more reliant on government-supplied forced labor. They will then begin to tailor their programs to satisfy the demands of government bureaucrats instead of the needs of the community.

This post was published at Ron Paul Institute on October 19, 2014.

Tom Englehardt Very Articulate Discussion Of Snowden, Golden Age Of Spying

We came to the Englehardt article by first reading a brief one by David Swanson, Shadow Facts About Shadow Government, if you want to start there, first. Both are excellent reads.
From Tom Englehardt:
[Note for TomDispatch Readers: Call me moved. I recently went to the premiere of Citizenfour, Laura Poitras’s engrossing new film on Edward Snowden, at the New York Film Festival. The breaking news at film’s end: as speculation had it this summer, there is indeed at least one new, post-Snowden whistleblower who has come forward from somewhere inside the U. S. intelligence world with information about a watchlist (that includes Poitras) with ‘more than 1.2 million names’ on it and on the American drone assassination program. Here’s what moved me, however. My new book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World, ends with a ‘Letter to an Unknown Whistleblower,’ whose first lines are: ‘I don’t know who you are or what you do or how old you may be. I just know that you exist somewhere in our future as surely as does tomorrow or next year… And how exactly do I know this? Because despite our striking inability to predict the future, it’s a no-brainer that the national security state is already building you into its labyrinthine systems.’ And now, of course, such a whistleblower is officially here and no matter how fiercely the government may set out after whistleblowers, there will be more. It’s unstoppable, in part thanks to figures like Poitras, who is the subject of today’s TomDispatch interview. Tom] Edward Snowden and the Golden Age of Spying A TomDispatch Interview With Laura Poitras
Here’s a Ripley’s Believe It or Not! stat from our new age of national security. How many Americans have security clearances? The answer: 5.1 million, a figure that reflects the explosive growth of the national security state in the post-9/11 era. Imagine the kind of system needed just to vet that many people for access to our secret world (to the tune of billions of dollars). We’re talking here about the total population of Norway and significantly more people than you can find in Costa Rica, Ireland, or New Zealand. And yet it’s only about 1.6% of the American population, while on ever more matters, the unvetted 98.4% of us are meant to be left in the dark.
For our own safety, of course. That goes without saying.
All of this offers a new definition of democracy in which we, the people, are to know only what the national security state cares to tell us. Under this system, ignorance is the necessary, legally enforced prerequisite for feeling protected. In this sense, it is telling that the only crime for which those inside the national security state can be held accountable in post-9/11 Washington is not potential perjury before Congress, or the destruction of evidence of a crime, or torture, or kidnapping, or assassination, or the deaths of prisoners in an extralegal prison system, but whistleblowing; that is, telling the American people something about what their government is actually doing. And that crime, and only that crime, has been prosecuted to the full extent of the law (and beyond) with a vigorunmatched in American history. To offer a single example, the only American to go to jail for the CIA’s Bush-era torture program was John Kiriakou, a CIA whistleblower who revealed the name of an agent involved in the program to a reporter.

This post was published at Edge Trader Plus on October 20, 2014.

Ron Paul: Hillary would be a pro-war, pro-Fed president

Ron Paul says Hillary Clinton would be a pro-war, pro-military-industrial complex and pro-Federal Reserve president.
Paul, former Republican congressman and presidential candidate, made the remarks during an interview on Thursday night on a RT America program, Politicking with Larry King.
When King asked Paul what kind of president the former US secretary of state would be, he said, ‘I would think she’d be pretty average, pretty mediocre, pretty much for war, pretty much for welfare-ism, pretty much for deficits, pretty supportive of the Federal Reserve and loving the military-industrial complex.’
Paul, 79, has maintained strong positions against the military-industrial complex and the Federal Reserve, each of which he considers responsible for many of the ills afflicting the United States.

This post was published at The Common Sense Show on 18 Oct, 2014.

Khorasan Group: Anatomy of Propaganda

Remember the Khorasan Group? It was only three weeks ago, when the Obama Administration was desperate for any kind of legal justification for its plan to begin bombing Syria, that we began hearing about a horrifically dangerous group that was worse than ISIS and was in the final stages of planning an attack on the United States.
Absent a threat from Syria, absent Congressional authorization, absent a UN resolution, any US missile strike on Syria would be illegal, an aggressive move characteristic of a rogue state. If a story line could be crafted that there was an imminent threat to the United States, however, the president would have Constitutional authority to thwart the attempted strike.
So that is precisely the line the US administration – through anonymous “senior administration officials” – proceeded to cast out. And the mainstream media fish were all biting.

This post was published at Ron Paul Institute on October 14, 2014.

The Hidden Agenda Behind the New ‘Free’ Tarade Deals: ‘Everyone but China’

‘Free trade’ is at best a misnomer, at worst an oxymoron: these trade pacts contain surprisingly little related to trade. So, what are they really about?
Don Quijones, freelance writer, translator in Barcelona, Spain. Editor at WOLF STREET. Mexico is his country-in-law. Raging Bull-Shit is his modest attempt to scrub away the lathers of soft soap peddled by political and business leaders and their loyal mainstream media. This article is a Wolf Street exclusive.
On Saturday, people hit the streets of Europe to protest the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Deal (TTIP), a hyper-secret, so-called ‘free’ trade agreement that aims to bind together two of the world’s biggest markets that together represent more than 800 million consumers and 45% of global trade.
But ‘free trade’ is at best a misnomer, at worst an oxymoron: TTIP contains surprisingly little related to trade, as Ben Beachy of the Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch explains.
In the TPP deal (DQ: TPP stands for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is currently stalled in the U. S. Congress but which Obama seeks to revive during the lame duck session)… only five of 29 chapters have anything to do with what is traditionally defined as trade (i.e. customs, tariffs and other barriers to trade). [Most are] so-called ‘non-traditional’ trade issues, which would include, for example, the right of a corporation to have a monopoly patent over some drug that it produces, a right that is fundamentally antithetical to free trade.
Indeed, what gets rarely mentioned in the debate is the fact that trade between the U. S. and Europe has never been freer, with the average tariff between the two regions already as low of 3%. Which begs the question: why the sudden need for a new, game-changing transatlantic trade agreement? Especially when you take into account that the TTIP is forecast (by a study commissioned by the European Commission, no less) to provide a paltry 0.1% boost to economic growth in Europe… over a 10-year-period – the equivalent of a rounding error!
So, if it’s not about trade, what is the TTIP really about? As I previously reported (hereand here), one of the primary goals of 21st century trade deals like TTIP is to enshrine into law the corporate takeover of the political, cultural, economic, financial, agricultural, scientific, digital and public space, as well as remove any remaining barriers on the ability of multinational corporations to exploit the world’s resources – including, of course, its human resources.
But that’s just part of the story, albeit a very important one. There is also a more subtle agenda at work: namely to secure Western domination of the global economy and geopolitical landscape for the foreseeable future.
To achieve that goal, the U. S. and its allies have just one trick left up their sleeve: launching the mother of all trade wars.
EBC: ‘Everyone but China’…

This post was published at Wolf Street on October 14, 2014.

Officially Killing Americans

The Food and Drug Administration can make two types of errors. It can approve a drug that has dangerous unanticipated side effects, or it can reject or delay approval of a drug that is safe and effective. Let’s look at these errors, because to err on the side of under- or over-caution is costly.
It’s in an FDA official’s self-interest to err on the side of over-caution. People who are injured by incorrectly approved drugs – and their families – will know that they are victims of FDA mistakes, or under-caution. Their suffering makes headlines. FDA officials face unfavorable publicity, perhaps congressional hearings and possible termination.
The story is very different when the FDA incorrectly delays or denies drug approval – errs on the side of over-caution. Here victims are people who are prevented access to drugs that could have helped them. Their suffering or death is seen as reflecting the state of medicine rather than the status of an FDA drug application. Their doctor simply tells them there’s nothing more that can be done to help them. This kind of FDA victim is invisible.
Dr. Henry I. Miller is a medical researcher, a 15-year veteran of the FDA and now a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has an article in the New York Post titled ‘Life-saving drugs and deadly delays’ (9/28/2014). He says that the FDA has just granted expanded access to an experimental drug for the Ebola virus. Safety and efficacy testing of the drug TKM-Ebola has barely begun, and there have been no clinical trials. Miller says, ‘It’s OK as far as it goes, but it’s an exception to the FDA’s reluctance to approve the use of life-saving products.’

This post was published at Lew Rockwell on October 14, 2014.

Ebola Update – Paul Craig Roberts

A number of readers have read reports that the CIA was active in West Africa just prior to the ebola outbreak, and some have read reports that the ebola strain is a weaponized version engineered to spread by air and surface contact. Some readers ask me to confirm or refute these reports, and others want to know if the One Percent or the Bilderbergers have started the process of eliminating the surplus population.
The only people who would be able to answer these questions would be the people responsible, if such a plot is actually underway. Even then, the warning would likely to ignored or discredited. A top NSA official, William Binney, told us years ago about the illegal and unconstitutional NSA spying, but nothing was done about it. Edward Snowden told us again, and the response was to label him a Russian or Chinese spy. Congress has not conducted a meaningful investigation. No heads have rolled. The presstitute media attacks Snowden, not the NSA. And so on.
Although I cannot answer the questions, I can draw important conclusions from the fact that so many are asking them. It is clear as day that the US government has lost credibility among large segments of the American population as well as abroad. Increasingly, Americans do not believe their government or the media that lies for the government. This is why the print and TV media are on the decline, making it easier for the CIA to buy the media to serve its agendas.

This post was published at Paul Craig Roberts on October 11, 2014.

Congressional Hearings Show How US Intel Has Jeopardized the Tech Industry

Google’s Schmidt: Surveillance fears are going to end up breaking the Internet … Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore) took the opportunity to slam National Security Agency surveillance work as part of an unacceptable “digital dragnet.” But the hour-long session quickly shifted from talk about the digital economy to the risks posed by government surveillance programs to human-to-human communications. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt talked of visiting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel this summer and spending time in her East German hometown. Merkel, said Schmidt, reflected upon growing up in a surveillance state and pulled out her cellphone. Schmidt recalled the German leader saying, “What are they doing listening to my phone calls with my mother?” – Washington Post
Dominant Social Theme: The US intel community’s commandeering of large technology companies is jeopardizing trust – and business opportunities – around the world. It’s not the fault of the industry!
Free-Market Analysis: We wish we could be more sympathetic to US tech giants, but we can’t. The largest US firms have apparently – and obviously – turned themselves into a kind of Trojan horse for the US intelligence community and for law enforcement besides.
Now Congress is holding hearings on the matter and top technologists like Eric Schmidt – see the above article excerpt – are warning about dire consequences.
But are these proverbial crocodile tears? Google, Facebook, Microsoft, the largest US tech firms are seemingly virtually married to the surveillance agencies that they wish to distance themselves from.
We’ve written numerous articles about this unsettling phenomenon.

This post was published at The Daily Bell on October 10, 2014.

Border Patrol Agent Slams Feds: ‘We All Know Who We’ve Captured… You Can’t Keep This Kind Of Information A Secret’

Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) recently claimed that a high-level Department of Homeland Security official informed him of the capture of at least ten Islamic State terrorists on the Texas-Mexico border. A DHS spokesperson speaking with the New Republic unequivocally denied the Congressman’s claims:
‘The suggestion that individuals who have ties to ISIL have been apprehended at the Southwest border is categorically false, and not supported by any credible intelligence or the facts on the ground,’ said DHS spokesperson Marsha Catron.
‘DHS continues to have no credible intelligence to suggest terrorist organizations are actively plotting to cross the southwest border.’
But even the Islamic State has said they want to launch attacks directly on American soil and in recent weeks IS public relations arms on social media have urged followers to identify U. S. soldiers, track down their addresses and kill them and their families. Some reports of DHS chatter even suggest that America’s worst fears of a biological attack could be realized if IS militants infect themselves with Ebola or another deadly virus and deliver it to America in live hosts via the southern border.
And while Homeland Security has brushed off such threats and warnings as not credible, the border patrol agents being faced with thousands of undocumented immigrants attempting to cross into the United States daily have a completely different story to tell.

This post was published at shtfplan on October 9th, 2014.

Parallel Reconstruction

While the political commentators in the nation’s capital are wrapped up in the debate over what to do about ISIS, and as one third of the Senate and nearly all members of the House campaign for re-election, the president’s spies continue to capture massive amounts of personal information about hundreds of millions of us and lie about it.
The president continues to dispatch his National Security Agency spies as if he were a law unto himself, and Congress – which is also being spied upon – has done nothing to protect the right to privacy that the Fourth Amendment was written to ensure. Congress has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet it has failed miserably to do so. But the spying is now so entrenched in government that a sinister and largely unnoticed problem lurks beneath the surface.
NSA documents released by Edward Snowden show that the feds seriously deceived Congress and the courts in an effort to spy upon all of us and to use the gathered materials in criminal prosecutions, even though they told federal judges they would not. Among the more nefarious procedures the feds have engaged in is something called ‘parallel reconstruction.’ This procedure seeks to hide the true and original source of information about a criminal defendant when it was obtained unlawfully.

This post was published at Lew Rockwell on October 9, 2014.