All over the country, it keeps happening. Over and over. Republican Party operatives are pulling every trick out of the book to block Ron Paul from winning votes and delegates. In Washington, they're trying to unify delegates for Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich in an attempt to block Paul supporters. In North Dakota, the party operatives shoved through a pre-selected slate of delegates for Romney, even though Romney polled third in North Dakota. Paul finished second behind Santorum. (We saw the same kind of dirty tricks in Georgia earlier in the election cycle.) This comes after the rigged selection process in Missouri, and the debacle in Maine, where entire towns where Paul support was strong were recorded as casting zero votes. Problems have been reported in Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, Nevada, and Virginia. Of course, this has been going on from the beginning of the election season, starting in Iowa.
Yet all the mainstream media does is report that Ron Paul lost yet another election, and why doesn't he just drop out and go away?
In fact, the MSM asks, just where has Ron Paul gone? On the same day Fox News asked that question, he was speaking to a capacity crowd of at least 6,000 people at UCLA. When all the seats were gone, people climbed into the trees to see him. He drew an even bigger crowd at Berkeley.
Did you see that on your local news? Of course not, just like you don't hear any reports in the mainstream media about the constant, relentless voter fraud that continues to go on, state after state. And this isn't even something new. Hillary Clinton supposedly ran into the same kind of stonewalling tactics from her party in 2008, so it's not even as if this is something limited to one party.
Michele Thomas, a professional photographer in Hollywood, told WND in an exclusive interview that her resistance to the Obama campaign made her a target of intimidation.
"I have received death threats from Obama's people," she said. "I think I was called a 'racist' a thousand times. If you didn’t stand for Obama, you were a racist. It was a way to intimidate you."
[...]
Thomas started out as a volunteer for Hillary in Los Angeles, making thousands of phone calls from the local campaign office.
What she witnessed while volunteering for Hillary in the Nevada Democratic Party caucuses eventually turned her into an activist.
"The Obama campaign people were stealing the caucuses -- throwing away votes, intimidating people from entering the caucus locations," she said. "It was very systematic. The Obama supporters got control over the caucus packages and they manipulated the vote."
She said she was astounded that the media was not interested in covering the alleged abuses.
"Everyone knew the Obama people were stealing the election," she charged.
Where is the media? Reporting only what their corporate masters tell them to report, one can only assume.
Well, if Paul can't win because the elections are rigged, at least he has the satisfaction of knowing that he's earned the support of five of Romney's relatives.
It's just sad that it's come to this in America. And the biggest travesty isn't that fair elections are being undermined -- it's that Ron Paul is the only guy who stands a chance of beating Obama. Let's face it -- Romney and Gingrich would get the GOP establishment vote, and Santorum would win over the religious zealots. Paul is the only candidate who could reach beyond the GOP and attract both independent voters and disaffected Democrats. If anyone else wins the nomination besides Paul, Obama will win. And it wouldn't matter anyway, since they're pretty much the same person. Hell, Romney even said he would have supported the detention of Americans as written into the 2011 NDAA bill. That would be the same bill Obama once threatened to veto -- if the detention provision had been taken out -- and signed on New Year's Eve, when no one was watching.
Of course, even when people are watching, Barky doesn't seem to care much whether he displays an arrogant contempt for the law and our system of government. When the debate over the Obamacare mandate finally reached the Supreme Court, and the questioning from the justices suggested some deep concerns, Obama's response was to warn the court not to make an "activist" decision:
I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. ... And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.
Are you freaking kidding me? This guy used to teach constitutional law? There is nothing "unprecedented" in having the Supreme Court overturn a law -- that's what the court does, and that's what it's been doing for 200 years. The law also was not passed by a "strong majority"; it was a 2,700-page bill that was never read and barely squeaked by, on a second vote, cast literally in the middle of the night, after Obama cashed in just about every political favor he owed to get it done. And as for the court being unelected -- that's kind of the point. They're appointed so that they won't be influenced by the voting process. Unlike smarmy politicians, they're supposed to be impartial and not beholden to anyone. Their job is to interpret and uphold the Constitution. And if they can't determine that the Commerce Clause was never intended as a means to force people to purchase a product from a private company, all hope is lost, and Barky will get his wish of a fully activist court. Because once the government can order you to buy one product, there's literally nothing stopping them from ordering you to purchase anything else. U.S. automakers in the doldrums? Hey, no problem -- we hereby order all Americans to purchase a new car at least once every five years. Sound ludicrous? If the Obamacare mandate is upheld, there is nothing stopping the government from doing something exactly like that.
Of course, we're dealing with a Supreme Court that just said it's fine to conduct strip searches on people who've been arrested for something as innocuous as an unpaid parking ticket, and that ruled that it's OK for government witnesses to lie to grand juries. So forgive me if I don't have a lot of faith in a positive outcome here.
Some critics have called Obama's words against the Supreme Court an act of intimidation. Wouldn't surprise me if he was openly threatening the justices, considering he and his people apparently have a knack for delivering threats. If one Hollywood producer is to be believed, people ended up dead -- and Chelsea Clinton's life may have even been threatened -- when the Clintons were poised to blow the whistle on Obama's lack of qualification for office.
Oh, you thought some right-wing cranks came up with the birth-certificate issue? Nope. And it took the independent press to examine the birth certificate that was finally released and find that it was most likely a forgery. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something fishy was going on when, after spending years and millions of taxpayer dollars fighting the birth-certificate issue, Obama suddenly releases it -- and then three days later wags the dog by announcing that Osama bin Laden had been captured and killed by U.S. forces. How does this guy have any credibility left?
And if you thought it wasn't bad enough that he's approved detention of U.S. citizens, the takeover of any sector of the economy for "national defense," and the end of peaceful assembly, now he's likely to see a bill that would let the government monitor any part of the Internet for essentially any reason.
H.R. 3523, a piece of legislation dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short), has been created under the guise of being a necessary implement in America's war against cyberattacks. But the vague verbiage contained within the pages of the paper could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor, and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties. Critics have already come after CISPA for the capabilities that it will give to seemingly any federal entity that claims it is threatened by online interactions, but unlike the Stop Online Privacy Act and the Protect IP Acts that were discarded on the Capitol Building floor after incredibly successful online campaigns to crush them, widespread recognition of what the latest would-be law will do has yet to surface to the same degree.Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT that Congress is currently considering a number of cybersecurity bills that could eventually be voted into law, but for the group that largely advocates an open Internet, she warns that provisions within CISPA are reason to worry over what the realities could be if it ends up on the desk of President Barack Obama. So far CISPA has been introduced, referred and reported by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and expects to go before a vote in the first half of Congress within the coming weeks."We have a number of concerns with something like this bill that creates a sort of vast hole in the privacy law to allow government to receive these kinds of information,: explains Burman, who acknowledges that the bill, as written, allows the US government to involve itself into any online correspondence, current exemptions notwithstanding, if it believes there is reason to suspect cyber crime. As with other authoritarian attempts at censorship that have come through Congress in recent times, of course, the wording within the CISPA allows for the government to interpret the law in such a number of degrees that any online communication or interaction could be suspect and thus unknowingly monitored.
Note that one crucial line: "Congress is currently considering a number of cybersecurity bills that could eventually be voted into law." So even if this one doesn't make it, there will be another. As it is, you'd better not get into an online argument with someone in Michigan, because Facebook posts that are considered threatening or harassing can now land you in prison. In Arizona, doing so much as annoying someone online could land you behind bars for a quarter-century if a new bill passes there.
Meanwhile, the government is probably monitoring what you say online already, so who even needs to sit around and worry about what Congress does, when the feds just go ahead and do whatever they want without the pesky process of getting a law passed?
One way or another -- whether it's from online snoops or spy drones flying overhead -- Big Brother is watching you.
No comments:
Post a Comment