The GOP Is Soon To Be DOA!

Goodbye to the Republican Party: Why I Left the GOP by Roger Stone

I registered to vote as a Republican the same day I turned 18. I registered so I could vote for Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972. I was excited to join the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Goldwater and Reagan. For one year before leaving for college I served on the Westchester (NY) Republican County Committee. At George Washington University I joined College Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom (YAF).

A Goldwater zealot in grade school after a neighbor gave me Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, I was attracted to Goldwater's belief in individualism and his "live and let live" philosphpy as well as his skepticism about big intrusive government. Barry wanted government out of the boardroom and out of the bedroom.
While living in Washington's Virginia suburbs, I served on the Arlington County Republican Committee and later the Alexandria Republican City Committee. I served as Young Republican National Chairman from 1977-1979, having been elected in Nashville to follow in the footsteps of Congressman Herbert Warburton, Congressman John Ashbrook, Congressman Donald E. "Buz" Lukens, and Governor Don Sundquist.
I have worked on the campaign staff of Republican candidates in twelve national Republican presidential campaigns. I was the youngest staffer at President Nixon's 1972 re-election committee, famously known as the Committee to Re-elect the President, or CREEP, as it became known.
In 1976, I was appointed National Director of Youth For Reagan by Senator Paul Laxalt, chairman of Citizens For Reagan. In 1980, I served as Northeast Regional Political Director for Ronald Reagan serving with skilled political operatives like Charlie Black, Frank Donatelli, Drew Lewis, J. Kenneth Klinge, Lou Kitchin, Paul Manafort and 1968 Reagan campaign veterans Frank Whetstone and Anderson Carter.
In 1984 I reprised this role in the Reagan-Bush re-election campaign, taking on Ohio in addition to the northeastern states. I worked for Jack Kemp for president in 1988. Later in 1988, I took the title of Senior Consultant and flew to California at the direction of Bush campaign manager Jim Baker to salvage California where George H.W. Bush beat Governor Mike Dukakis by a thin one percent.
I'm happy to say I sat out the Bush 41 re-election campaign. It was a total fiasco. Without Roger Ailes the campaign fizzled. In 2000, I went to Miami-Dade to supervise recount efforts, again at the request of James A. Baker III. The rest is, of course, history.
In 1976 conservative activists like National Review publisher Bill Rusher, direct-mail genius Richard Viguerie and former Harvard College Republican Chairman and Nixon administration OEO Director Howard Philips began arguing for the abandonment of the Republican party for a new third party, largely because of the influence of the Rockefeller-Ford wing of the GOP. I argued in barrooms across Washington against this plan because I remembered Barry Goldwater's admonition to conservatives at the 1960 Republican Convention that "this Party's our historic home. If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, lets get to work."
I have always enjoyed being in the party of giants like Roscoe Conkling, Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, Robert A. Taft, Thomas E. Dewey, Joe McCarthy, Henry Cabot Lodge and his brother Governor John Davis Lodge, Everett Dirksen, Caleb Boggs, John Williams, Homer Capehart, Bill Jenner, Nelson Rockefeller, George Murphy, Barry Goldwater, Walter Judd, Bill Scranton, Strom Thurmond, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, Tom Kean, and Hamilton Fish Sr. and Jr.
Like every good Republican I hated FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, Tip O'Neill, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Teddy Kennedy. I have a tattoo of Richard Nixon on my back not because I admire his policies, but because I admire his drive and resilience.
On Monday, I left the Republican Party, changing my Florida voter registration to the Libertarian Party. There are 25,000 of us registered Libertarians in Florida.
Sadly, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan wouldn't recognize today's Republican Party. The GOP went from being a Main Street party under Ronald Reagan to being the Wall Street Party again under both Bushes. Bush 41 broke his "no new taxes" pledge and President George W. Bush's new entitlement programs and reckless spending made us the party of big spending and big government.
Meanwhile social conservatives in the party demand litmus tests on issues like abortion and gay marriage equality from those who share their conservative economic and foreign policy views, making a cohesive coalition of social and economic conservatives ultimately impossible. Barry Goldwater himself, Mr. Conservative, decried the religious right in the party before his death.
Sadly the difference between the two major parties has become rhetorical. Under the Democrats you're going to hell. Under the Republicans, you are still going to hell, but you are going more slowly.
To real conservatives the freedom of the individual is paramount. No one should be able to tell you what you can eat, drink, smoke, or marry, or what kind of gun you can own. We don't want to be snooped on by an all-knowing big brother government. That is the essence of liberty. The Republican Party has become both a party of big government and also an authoritarian party that would tell us how to live.
That the Republican Party can only produce Mitt Romney, who was an independent during the Reagan-Bush years (and only converted to conservatism after serving one term as governor, never intending to run for re-election while always planning to run for president), Newt Gingrich, a thrice-married egomaniac with delusions of grandeur and Rick Santorum, a religious fanatic, who would tell other people how to live, as presidential candidates proves the GOP may be going the way as the Whigs.
I fervently hoped that Donald Trump would run for president. Trump is a big thinker, with the kind of toughness and guile you need to be a successful negotiator and a successful president. While it is popular among elites to snicker at Trump, his connection to average Americans and working people cannot be denied. As Neil Cavuto of Fox Business News said, "No one draws ratings like Trump."
To put it bluntly, the Republican Party is hopelessly f*cked up.
My first experience with the Libertarian Party was in New York where a small faction of anarchists held a state convention while refusing to allow all candidates access to the rules and a list of the voting delegates. Joe Stalin would have been proud of the tactics used to nominate a non-libertarian registered Republican who had only recently run as a candidate for the left-wing Green Party. But these childish tactics are not the norm in the largely democratic Libertarian Party. I have found Libertarian Party activists in California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Colorado, Washington, and Michigan have proven to be democratic, reasonable, dedicated and interested in victory.
The Libertarian Party stands for both economic and personal freedom. Libertarians oppose spending, debt, taxes, big government, and costly foreign wars where our national interests are not clear. We support a woman's right to choose an abortion, gay marriage equality, and the legalization of marijuana.
The Ron Paul revolution shows me a Libertarian moment is coming. It will gather momentum in 2012 and most likely manifest itself in 2016. Ron Paul's incredibly strong support among young voters is the tip-off. American voters have never been offered a presidential candidate who took conservative positions on fiscal issues like spending, debt, and taxes, while taking freedom-based (i.e. liberal) positions on choice, gay marriage, and drug-law reform. This is clearly where a majority of Americans are.
I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida Republican Primary in my last official act as a Republican. I leave the GOP with a heavy heart. Theodore Roosevelt left the party in 1912 and he came back. Ron Paul left the party in 1988 and he came back. I don't think I will have the opportunity to come back. As the Republicans were to the Whigs in 1852, the Libertarians are to the Republicans.

Goodbye Grand Old Party.

But It's Good For The Environment!

Students step over 'rivers of urine' after green bathrooms plan for waterless urinals turns a high school yellow... and it will cost $500,000 to fix

By Michael Zennie
Last updated at 8:20 PM on 30th January 2012

Green solution? Falcon Waterfree urinals do not flush and, therefore, conserve water

Students at a high school in Boca Raton, Florida, must step over rivers of urine and endure the stench of rancid waste after a plan to bring 'green' waterless urinals into bathrooms backfired.
School officials at Spanish River High School thought they had found an environmentally-friendly, cost-saving solution for their bathrooms when they installed Falcon Waterfree urinals in their boys bathrooms.
But with no water moving through the school's copper pipes to flush the urine into the sewer system, the waste produced noxious gases that ate through the metal, leaving leaky pipes that allowed urine to drip into walls and flow onto floors.
'It was pretty disgusting,' school board chairman Frank Barbieri told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
'The girls had to step over a river of urine. I could smell it as soon as I walked into the hallway.'

 

Now, the school district, which was hoping to save $100 a year in water costs for each waterless urinal, must pay $500,000 to repair the damage and replace the appliances with the traditional flush variety in four high schools. 
Neither the school, nor Falcon Waterfree Technologies, the Los Angeles-based maker of the urinals, thought to check the pipes before installing the new urinals.
Instead of water, the company's urinals use disposables cartridges that trap urine odors. They use no water and the company claims the only maintained needed is regular cleaning and changing the cartridges four times a year.

Cleaning up: Officials are trying to get Spanish River High School back in shape after urine flowed through the halls

The company promises 'an odor-free restroom, clean pipes and zero water waste' on its website.
But officials admitted corrosive sewer gases ate away at the pipes causing urine to flow into the walls and trickle into the school, instead of into the sewer.
As for the company's odor-free claims: 'We're really concerned because we don't think it's a sanitary place for our children to be,' Mara Shapiro, president of the school's PTA told the Sun-Sentinel.
'The hallways reek.'
The school district is looking to Falcon to pay for the mess as they order 200 waterless urinals be replaced with water-efficient urinals.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093979/Students-step-rivers-urine-green-bathrooms-plan-turns-high-school-yellow--cost-500-000-fix.html#ixzz1mhE5XH9G

Evangelicals Need To Abandon The GOP Before Its Too Late!

The Rise of Christian Libertarians

Caryn Dahlstrand Rivadeneira

Friday, 27 January 2012

Why do so many of today’s young adults identify with libertarian philosophy?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Like any election year, as 2012 progresses, political discussions will intensify—especially among Christians. For believers, there are always complicated questions of faith and policy, how one affects the other and when the two should be held separate. But while the questions might be the same, the answers people have are often different. Over the next few weeks, we'll be asking Christians of various political backgrounds to describe how they arrived at their particular view and why they vote the way they do. Today, Caryn Dahlstrand Rivadeneira explains why she leans Libertarian, the surge of Ron Paul support and why people of faith shouldn't be so quick to label a "Christian party."

I took much pleasure last week when outrage over the proposed Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House popped up on my Facebook and Twitter feeds. Especially since the outrage boiled out of Democratic and Republican friends alike.

I agreed with their outrage. No matter how much the music industry lobbied, no matter how much I—as a writer—appreciate steps to protect copyrights, these bills, which could stand to make criminals of us all, took a few giant steps too far.

But l was also pleased because friends—who usually roll their eyes at my Libertarian views—saw a big, meddling government clawing away at liberty and decided enough was enough. They felt the government had gone too far.

My friends aren’t the only ones realizing this. Though the Libertarian Party remains a non-entity in U.S. politics, the philosophy of libertarianism has been a guiding force in this year's GOP debate. And the surprising surge of support Ron Paul enjoys from young Americans—and young Christians—suggests that perhaps the Libertarian-leaning aren’t so far off in right field after all.

Birth of a Libertarian

My alignment with the Libertarian philosophy came out of my hatred for hate crimes. Or, rather, hate crime legislation. The idea of punishing a person for what they thought while committing a crime pushed me over the edge—politically. Well this, combined with my already solid disdain for power-addicted politicians, for the often ineffective spend-thriftiness of the Democratic Party and the often hurtful family-value-ness of the Republican Party.

For a long time, I figured I’d had to settle for the ever-milquetoast “moderate” description of my leanings, until I discovered Libertarianism more than a decade ago. I found a word to wrap around my politics—although, what a divisive word it is.

By now I’m used to my friends and foes on either side of the aisle telling me I’m crazy, uncaring, naïve or ill-informed for my Libertine views. But it stings a bit when my brothers and sisters in Christ take it a step further: asking how I can call myself a Christian and lean Libertarian.

Democrats ask how Libertarians can ignore the poor, the oppressed. How they can leave them at the mercy of selfish individuals and greedy corporations. They wonder how Christians can claim to love and follow Jesus and not vote for people who’d propose measures to force us to do what Jesus said—give to the poor and fight for justice for all.  

Republicans ask how Libertarians can ignore “traditional” families, traditional values. They wonder how they can claim to love and follow Jesus and not vote for people who’d propose measures that force people to adhere to biblical principals, to keep marriage between one man and one woman, to, say, keep marijuana and prostitution illegal.

To be a “social Liberal” and a “fiscal Conservative” makes little sense to many Christians. To Jesus-loving Democrats and Republicans, Libertarian views seem to contrast sharply with their views of Gospel-infused politics. But as evidenced by your Facebook news feed, it seems many are beginning to feel differently.

Why Are So Many Christians Drawn to Libertarianism Right Now?

God expects much from His people—especially those who’ve been given freedom and wealth unlike most of the world has ever seen. Far from wanting to see people left to suffer on their own, many Libertarians believe so deeply in the calls to seek justice and love mercy and to love our neighbors that they are unwilling to let a bloated, inefficient, distant government get in the way of that calling.

Contrary to popular belief, being Libertarian does not mean wanting poor people to starve. It does not mean wanting corporations to abuse their employees. It does not mean wanting mountaintops removed and earth scorched. It does not mean wanting more guns on the street. It does not mean wanting churches to be forced to marry same-sex couples. It does not mean we want laissez faire views of family or more smoking of pot. 

Many Libertarians would argue that it’s hard to love our homosexual neighbors when we’re railing in disgust at their longing for marriage. They'd say it's hard to love our impoverished neighbors if we’re simply letting social services take care of them; it’s hard to be just when we say only the most powerful—the government—can protect themselves. They wonder how to be merciful when we punish thoughts; how to give cheerfully and generously when the giving is deducted from paychecks.

Probably one of the biggest disgraces of this “one nation under God” is that the government has had to step in to help those the Church should’ve been helping, to do what the Church was called to do. The Church failed—and government stepped in. Perhaps the reason many now lean Libertarian is because they’d like the Church to take back—and take seriously—its calling to transform this world. It’s Jesus—not Uncle Sam—that people should see and know whenever blessings flow and mercy, justice and love roll.

There is No “Christian Party”

The bottom line is following Jesus is supposed to be something we do—not vote for. Especially since no political philosophy or party will ever align perfectly with Scripture. Nor should it—in a free society. Our political leanings have as much to do with our personalities, our experiences, our families of origin, our callings—as they do our faith. Let’s be honest.

Be glad for Christian friends all over the political spectrum. It keeps us all thinking, all sharp. If we’re all open to listening to one another, open to seeking the best solutions, and understanding that God gave us these different political perspectives, then maybe—somehow—they can all work together. In some wild, beyond-the Beltway, Sprit-led way, we can be those hands and feet we’re called to be.

Caryn Rivadeneira is the author of Grumble Hallelujah: Learning to Love Your Life Even When It Lets You Down (Tyndale, 2011) and co-founder of Redbud Writers Guild. She and her family live outside of Chicago.

---

As Europe Falls So Does The Rest Of The Planet!

20 Signs That Europe Is Plunging Into a Full-Blown Economic Depression

End of the American Dream

An economic nightmare is descending on Europe. With each passing month, the economic numbers across Europe get even worse. At this point it is becoming extremely difficult for anyone to deny that Europe is plunging into a full-blown economic depression. In fact, some parts of Europe are already there. In Spain the overall unemployment rate is over 22 percent, and in Greece one out of every five retail establishments has already been closed down. All over Europe, economic activity is rapidly slowing down, unemployment is skyrocketing and bad debts are unraveling. It isn't even going to take a default by a nation such as Greece or a collapse of the euro to push Europe into an economic depression. All Europe has to do is to stay on the exact path that it is on right now and it will get there. Normally, European governments would respond to an economic slowdown by increasing government spending. But this time most of them are already drowning in debt. Instead of increasing government spending, most governments in Europe are actually cutting back. All over Europe, national governments are being encouraged to implement even more tax increases and even more budget cuts. The hope is that all of this austerity will help solve the nightmarish sovereign debt crisis that Europe is facing. But unfortunately, all of these tax increases and budget cuts are also going to involve a tremendous amount of economic pain.
The frightening thing is that we are just at the beginning of the process for most European nations. If you want to see where nations such as Portugal, Italy and Spain are headed, just take a look at Greece. Greece has been going down this road for several years, and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel for them.
The tax increases and budget cuts that are being implemented right now in Europe will be felt for years to come. The tremendous economic prosperity that was fueled by unprecedented amounts of debt will now give way to tremendous economic suffering.
The following are 20 signs that Europe is plunging into a full-blown economic depression....
#1 The unemployment rate for those between the ages of 16 and 24 is 28 percent in Italy, 43 percent in Greece and 51 percent in Spain.
#2 Overall, the unemployment rate for those under the age of 25 in the EU is 22.7 percent.
#3 Citigroup is projecting that the economy of Portugal will shrink by 5.7 percent this year.
#4 The total of all forms of debt in Portugal (government, business and consumer) is equivalent to 360 percent of GDP.
#5 The Greek "recession" is now entering a fifth year.
#6 The Greek economy shrank by 6 percent during 2011.
#7 It is being projected that the Greek economy will shrink by another 5 percent during 2012.
#8 The overall unemployment rate in Greece is now 18.5 percent.
#9 In Greece, 20 percent of all retail stores have been permanently shut down.
#10 The number of suicides in Greece rose by 40 percent in just one recent 12 month time period.
#11 According to the IMF, the amount of debt accumulated by the Greek government is equal to approximately 160 percent of GDP.
#12 In total, there are now more than 5 million unemployed workers in Spain.
#13 Bad loans in Spain recently reached a 17-year high.
#14 The overall unemployment rate in Spain is now a whopping 22.8 percent.
#15 The number of property repossessions in Spain has risen by 32 percent over the past year.
#16 When the maturing debt that the Italian government must roll over in 2012 is added to their projected budget deficit, the total comes to approximately 23.1 percent of Italy's GDP.
#17 Manufacturing activity in the euro zone has fallen for five months in a row.
#18 The UK economy actually contracted during the 4th quarter of 2011.
#19 The German economy actually contracted during the 4th quarter of 2011.
#20 The Baltic Dry Index, often used as a gauge for the health of the world economy, has fallen a staggering 61 percent since October.
Economic gloom is slowly spreading throughout Europe like a dark cloud. Some of the strongest economies in Europe are only just starting to slow down. Others are already gripped by tremendous economic pain. Trends forecaster Gerald Celente recently explained to ABC Australia that much of the EU is already experiencing an economic depression....

"If you live in Greece, you’re in a depression; if you live in Spain, you’re in a depression; if you live in Portugal or Ireland, you’re in a depression,” Celente said. “If you live in Lithuania, you’re running to the bank to get your money out of the bank as the bank runs go on. It’s a depression. Hungary, there’s a depression, and much of Eastern Europe, Romania, Bulgaria. And there are a lot of depressions going on [already]."

As things fall apart in Europe, the political wrangling is going to become even more intense.
For example, over the past few days a shocking new German proposal has come to light. Germany apparently would like Greece to give a "EU budget commissioner" the power to veto all Greek decisions on taxes and spending.
That would represent an unprecedented loss of sovereignty for Greece, and obviously Greek politicians are not excited about the idea at all.
In fact, Greek education minister Anna Diamantopoulou said that the proposal was "the product of a sick imagination".
But the sentiment in Germany is that since Greece must be bailed out by them, Greece should be willing to submit to some oversight for a certain amount of time.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Meanwhile, the Greek people continue to become angrier. According to one recent poll, about 90 percent all of Greek citizens are unhappy with the interim government led by Prime Minister Lucas Papademos.
Things are also unraveling very quickly in Portugal. Now there is talk that private investors will be required to take a "haircut" on Portuguese debt as well.
The following is from a recent article in the Telegraph....

A report for the Kiel Institute for the World Economy said Portugal would have to run a primary budget surplus of over 11pc of GDP a year to prevent debt dynamics spiralling out of control, even in a benign scenario of 2pc annual growth.

"Portugal's debt is unsustainable. That is the only possible conclusion," said David Bencek, the co-author, warning that no country can achieve a primary budget surplus above 5pc for long.

"We won't know what the trigger will be but once there is a decision on Greece people are going to start looking closely and realise that Portugal is the same position as Greece was a year ago."

Sadly, that article is exactly right.
Portugal is marching down the exact same road that Greece went down.
The yield on 5 year Portuguese bonds is now up to an all-time record 19.8 percent.
A year ago, the yield on those bonds was only about 6 percent.
This is the same thing that happened to Greece.
A year ago, the yield on 5 year Greek bonds was about 12 percent.
Now the yield on those bonds is more than 50 percent.
The world is facing a debt crisis unlike anything ever seen before, and Europe is right at the center of it.
Right now, the major industrialized nations of the world are 55 trillion dollars in debt.
Everyone knew that at some point that debt bomb was going to explode.
So what is going to happen next?
Well, Europe appears to be heading for a full-blown economic depression.
Will the rest of the globe be able to escape a similar fate?


Reprinted with permission from End of the American Dream.

February 3, 2012

Copyright © 2012 End of the American Dream

And I Can Think Of 90 More!

 

10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free

By Jonathan Turley, Published: January 13

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
Warrantless searches
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
Secret evidence
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
War crimes
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
Secret court
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
Immunity from judicial review
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)
Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
Extraordinary renditions
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.
Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”
Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”
And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.
The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.
The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.
Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.


Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

If This Is True Then Why Don't You Vote Libertarian In November!

NBC/WSJ poll: Majority would vote out every member of Congress

By NBC's Domenico Montanaro

In a country sharply divided on almost every issue, most Americans agree on one thing: they don’t like Congress, and they would vote to replace every single member -- even their own -- if they had the option.

Fifty-six percent of registered voters say they would vote out every member of Congress if there were a place on the ballot to do so. That’s the highest response in favor of the question since it was first asked in March 2010.

And they say so across the ideological spectrum – with 55 percent of liberals, 55 percent of moderates, and 58 percent of conservatives all feeling the same way.

“We found the one area in which all people in the country agree,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart.

 

Combine that with Congress continuing to be at near-record lows in approval at 13 percent and all members of Congress are at risk, McInturff said.

But there are also warning signs specifically for Republicans.

More people say the GOP has brought the wrong kind of change (31 percent) in Congress than the right kind (12 percent). That represents a drop for the GOP from a year ago, right after when they took control of the House as a result of the sweeping 2010 elections. In January 2011, 25 percent thought Republicans would bring the right kind of change versus 20 percent who thought they would bring the wrong kind.

Those attitudes are also far worse than right after when Democrats took control of the House in 2006 (42%/15%) and Republicans regained a majority in 1994 (37%/11%).

“People want Congress to get things done, act responsibly and fix the economy,” McInturff said, “and if they don’t,” they could be in trouble. McIntruff added, “These guys are going to be running in a head wind.”