Andrew Napolitano: The State Is Spying on You Right Now. Where's the Outrage?

[Suzanimal]

Great read from Judge Nap.

Here is a short pop quiz.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress earlier this month about the parameters of the secret negotiations between the United States and Iran over nuclear weapons and economic sanctions, how did he know what the negotiators were considering? Israel is not a party to those negotiations, yet the prime minister presented them in detail.

When Hillary Clinton learned that a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives had subpoenaed her emails as secretary of state and she promptly destroyed half of them — about 33,000 — how did she know she could get away with it? Destruction of evidence, particularly government records, constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice.

When Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of both the CIA and the NSA in the George W. Bush administration and the architect of the government’s massive suspicionless spying program, was recently publicly challenged to deny that the feds have the ability to turn on your computer, cellphone or mobile device in your home and elsewhere, and use your own devices to spy on you, why did he remain silent? The audience at the venue where he was challenged rationally concluded that his silence was his consent.

And when two judges were recently confronted with transcripts of conversations between known drug dealers — transcripts obtained without search warrants — and they asked the police who obtained them to explain their sources, how is it that the cops could refuse to answer? The government has the same obligation to tell the truth in a courtroom as any litigant, and in a criminal case, the government must establish that its acquisition of all of its evidence was lawful.

The common themes here are government spying and lawlessness. We now know that the Israelis spied on Secretary of State John Kerry, and so Netanyahu knew of what he spoke. We know that the Clintons believe there is a set of laws for them and another for the rest of us, and so Mrs. Clinton could credibly believe that her deception and destruction would go unpunished.

...

Where is the outrage? If you knew the feds were virtually present in your bedroom or your automobile, and your representatives in Congress did nothing about it, would you buy the nonsense that you should have nothing to hide? Would you send those weaklings back to Congress? Or would you say to a lawless government, as the Founders did to the British, “Thou shalt not enter here”? Does the Constitution mean what it says in bad times as well as in good times?

...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/andrew-p-napolitano/wheres-the-outrage-3/

 

[randomname]

Government spying is so common today that it is almost the new normal. Yet government spying is not normal to the Constitution.

Here is a short pop quiz: When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress earlier this month about the parameters of the secret negotiations between the United States and Iran over nuclear weapons and economic sanctions, how did he know what the negotiators were considering? Israel is not a party to those negotiations, yet the prime minister presented them in detail.

When Hillary Clinton learned that a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives had subpoenaed her emails as secretary of state and she promptly destroyed half of them—about 33,000—how did she know she could get away with it? Destruction of evidence, particularly government records, constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice.

When Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of both the CIA and the NSA in the George W. Bush administration and the architect of the government's massive suspicionless spying program, was recently publicly challenged to deny that the feds have the ability to turn on your computer, cellphone, or mobile device in your home and elsewhere, and use your own devices to spy on you, why did he remain silent? The audience at the venue where he was challenged rationally concluded that his silence was his consent.

Continued: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/andrew-p-napolitano/wheres-the-outrage-3/

 

[Weston White]

 

[paleocon1]

Truth is that the Constitution is absolutely dead. We now have a regime which is a nasty mix of 'fascism' and transnational progressives for flavor ruling for an elite which is not even of particularly American descent. The good news is that we Americans have absolutely no moral obligation to honour the regime in any way. They and their minions are fair game with no boundaries.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Truth is that the Constitution is absolutely dead. We now have a regime which is a nasty mix of 'fascism' and transnational progressives for flavor ruling for an elite which is not even of particularly American descent. The good news is that we Americans have absolutely no moral obligation to honour the regime in any way. They and their minions are fair game with no boundaries.

No, our understanding of constitutional intent is dead. The agreement it represents is as valid as it ever was. We are the ones that must enforce it, if we do not understand it, we cannot act with adequate unity to do so.

The framers defined unalienable rights and the right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. If they intended for us to alter or abolish, they intended for is to be adequately unified to do so. What did they intend to serve the purpose of enabling that unity?

Free speech is the only thing which can serve that purpose.

Agreement upon that is also agreement that such purpose is abridged because media caused confusion creates the disunity we suffer from.

Therein is the basis of action to conduct a lawful and peaceful revolution, alter or abolish through proper use of Article V by states controlled by the people. Here is the strategy using constitutional intent itself for the people to control their states.

A) Test officials and candidates for acceptance of the root purpose of free speech being to assure information vital to unity needed to alter or abolish is shared and understood.

B)Test officials and candidates for acceptance of root purpose of free speech as prime constitutional intent used to create unity to conduct Article V with constitutional intent as the prime right for the purpose of protecting unalienable rights.

C) As an official of government, can you accept that EVERY American can understand and accept A)?

D) Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg
http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmar...ands-for-article-v-constitutional-convention/

Because of that letter congress has adopted a rule to count applications.
http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s...le-to-count-article-v-convention-applications

Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

E) Can you understand and accept that any state legislator that cannot accept A), can be impeached in this constitutional emergency as being unfit for office?

F)Can you understand and accept that A) B) C) D) & E) are legal process and that IF citizens act with D) as justification, and E) to complete the legal process, they WILL be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" BECAUSE their states, as led by the people, then will agree that proper preparation for Article V consists of;

1) Amend Article V to assure the right to "alter or abolish" is enforceable under law by including preparatory amendment as a requirement.

2) End the abridging of free speech.

3) Securing the vote.

4) Campaign finance reform.

G) Americans need to agree that Officials of states and federal government must accept that such preparation by amendment is completely constitutional and can only enable democratic assertion of the principles of the republic, and, once complete; WHEREUPON all amendment should cease until America can be certain it is competent to Article V by testing itself to assure it knows and can define constitutional intent

 

[morfeeis]

I would challenge the dear judge that there is no outrage, my outrage is ever present every time i read the news or visit this site. The only thing lacking is action, the only action that most could think of is unspeakable and might do some good in allowing TPTB to know that we will fight. But in the long run and with the general sheep like attitude of the public would only rally them behind the idea of needing more protection from their real threat.

added to another list....

 

[ZENemy]

Starve the beast.

 

[Ender]

No, our understanding of constitutional intent is dead. The agreement it represents is as valid as it ever was. We are the ones that must enforce it, if we do not understand it, we cannot act with adequate unity to do so.

The framers defined unalienable rights and the right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. If they intended for us to alter or abolish, they intended for is to be adequately unified to do so. What did they intend to serve the purpose of enabling that unity?

Free speech is the only thing which can serve that purpose.

Agreement upon that is also agreement that such purpose is abridged because media caused confusion creates the disunity we suffer from.

Therein is the basis of action to conduct a lawful and peaceful revolution, alter or abolish through proper use of Article V by states controlled by the people. Here is the strategy using constitutional intent itself for the people to control their states.

A) Test officials and candidates for acceptance of the root purpose of free speech being to assure information vital to unity needed to alter or abolish is shared and understood.

B)Test officials and candidates for acceptance of root purpose of free speech as prime constitutional intent used to create unity to conduct Article V with constitutional intent as the prime right for the purpose of protecting unalienable rights.

C) As an official of government, can you accept that EVERY American can understand and accept A)?

D) Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg
http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmar...ands-for-article-v-constitutional-convention/

Because of that letter congress has adopted a rule to count applications.
http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s...le-to-count-article-v-convention-applications

Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

E) Can you understand and accept that any state legislator that cannot accept A), can be impeached in this constitutional emergency as being unfit for office?

F)Can you understand and accept that A) B) C) D) & E) are legal process and that IF citizens act with D) as justification, and E) to complete the legal process, they WILL be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" BECAUSE their states, as led by the people, then will agree that proper preparation for Article V consists of;

1) Amend Article V to assure the right to "alter or abolish" is enforceable under law by including preparatory amendment as a requirement.

2) End the abridging of free speech.

3) Securing the vote.

4) Campaign finance reform.

G) Americans need to agree that Officials of states and federal government must accept that such preparation by amendment is completely constitutional and can only enable democratic assertion of the principles of the republic, and, once complete; WHEREUPON all amendment should cease until America can be certain it is competent to Article V by testing itself to assure it knows and can define constitutional intent

Actually, the Constitution was a coup by the Hamiltonian Neocons of the day. The original federation was to be independent states with a small central government to handle trade and foreign issues.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Actually, the Constitution was a coup by the Hamiltonian Neocons of the day. The original federation was to be independent states with a small central government to handle trade and foreign issues.

And with Article V, the states could slowly move it back to that structure and proportion. I would support that, and feel that in some ways the represented intent of the constitution was to not be much more than that.

 

[paleocon1]

No, our understanding of constitutional intent is dead. The agreement it represents is as valid as it ever was. We are the ones that must enforce it, if we do not understand it, we cannot act with adequate unity to do so.

The framers defined unalienable rights and the right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. If they intended for us to alter or abolish, they intended for is to be adequately unified to do so. What did they intend to serve the purpose of enabling that unity?

Free speech is the only thing which can serve that purpose.

Agreement upon that is also agreement that such purpose is abridged because media caused confusion creates the disunity we suffer from.

Therein is the basis of action to conduct a lawful and peaceful revolution, alter or abolish through proper use of Article V by states controlled by the people. Here is the strategy using constitutional intent itself for the people to control their states.

A) Test officials and candidates for acceptance of the root purpose of free speech being to assure information vital to unity needed to alter or abolish is shared and understood.

B)Test officials and candidates for acceptance of root purpose of free speech as prime constitutional intent used to create unity to conduct Article V with constitutional intent as the prime right for the purpose of protecting unalienable rights.

C) As an official of government, can you accept that EVERY American can understand and accept A)?

D) Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkEg
http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmar...ands-for-article-v-constitutional-convention/

Because of that letter congress has adopted a rule to count applications.
http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s...le-to-count-article-v-convention-applications

Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

E) Can you understand and accept that any state legislator that cannot accept A), can be impeached in this constitutional emergency as being unfit for office?

F)Can you understand and accept that A) B) C) D) & E) are legal process and that IF citizens act with D) as justification, and E) to complete the legal process, they WILL be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" BECAUSE their states, as led by the people, then will agree that proper preparation for Article V consists of;

1) Amend Article V to assure the right to "alter or abolish" is enforceable under law by including preparatory amendment as a requirement.

2) End the abridging of free speech.

3) Securing the vote.

4) Campaign finance reform.

G) Americans need to agree that Officials of states and federal government must accept that such preparation by amendment is completely constitutional and can only enable democratic assertion of the principles of the republic, and, once complete; WHEREUPON all amendment should cease until America can be certain it is competent to Article V by testing itself to assure it knows and can define constitutional intent

Nice pipe dream but utterly disconnected from the Reality of Amerika2015.

 

[Mach]

Talk about Deja Vu....... Paul/Napolitano 2016

 

[DamianTV]

Starve the beast.

How do we do that when Taxes are no longer needed to pay for our own enslavement? Oh yeah, Abolishing the Fed is on our list of must accomlish tasks...

 

[Anti Federalist]

D) Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?

This negates everything else you wrote.

What is this talk of law, courts and "making" this government do anything?

No justice and no enforcement of constitutional principles (meaning the BoR) will be found in Theire courts.

We, the people, are the only ones left to make Themme comply.

And modern day AmeriKans do not have the stomach for what that will take.

So here we sit.

Everything else is just mental masturbation.

 

[muh_roads]

How do we do that when Taxes are no longer needed to pay for our own enslavement? Oh yeah, Abolishing the Fed is on our list of must accomlish tasks...

Stop using the US Dollar. That's how you starve the beast.

Using Bitcoin feels good. Using the US Dollar supports US sponsored terrorism. Using debt notes funds those making the debt.

 

[KCIndy]

Stop using the US Dollar. That's how you starve the beast.

Using Bitcoin feels good. Using the US Dollar supports US sponsored terrorism. Using debt notes funds those making the debt.

Only one problem there. Getting Bitcoin means buying it.... with the U.S. Dollar. Unless one has a set of fast and damn powerful mining rigs - purchased, um... with the U.S. Dollar.

And I say this as a user and supporter of Bitcoin, for what it's worth.

 

[KCIndy]

And modern day AmeriKans do not have the stomach for what that will take.

So here we sit.

Everything else is just mental masturbation.

This - THIS - is the problem.

I've heard historians discuss the fact that in the American Revolution, "only" about ten to thirty percent of the population felt that the problems of the day warranted fighting in order to affect change.

"ONLY" ten thirty percent.

Right now, I would guess that way less than thirty percent of the population would even acknowledge that there are any serious problems. I would also guess that LESS THAN HALF OF ONE PERCENT would be willing to do anything more strenuous or dangerous than writing a letter to the editor in order to bring about change.

That's why we're screwed.

 

[Stratovarious]

This - THIS - is the problem.

I've heard historians discuss the fact that in the American Revolution, "only" about ten to thirty percent of the population felt that the problems of the day warranted fighting in order to affect change.

"ONLY" ten thirty percent.

Right now, I would guess that way less than thirty percent of the population would even acknowledge that there are any serious problems. I would also guess that LESS THAN HALF OF ONE PERCENT would be willing to do anything more strenuous or dangerous than writing a letter to the editor in order to bring about change.

That's why we're screwed.

The biggest threat to life on earth has always been GOVERNMENT , no disease or natural disaster can compare, big banks running the Military Industrial Complex, revolving door of win win win for global bankers and arms dealers.

, ,

 

[56ktarget]

Obamacare has saved tens of thousands of American lives... Where's the outrage???