A local ambulance chaser in the Denver area has a television commercial in which he stands before a white board and does some drawing. He draws a picture of a deadbeat person driving a car who is then hit by a drunken driver. The next picture shows that deadbeat person, wearing a neck brace, being refused care and cash by his insurance company. The next picture shows the lawyer jumping to the rescue of the deadbeat person and the final picture shows the deadbeat person holding a gigantic bag of cash and sporting an enormous smile on his uninjured face. After crafting all of these drawings with a whimsical song playing in the background the lawyer turns to the audience and inquires, "Get the picture?"
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, what the Socialist Democracy of Amerika used to be, stated, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What part of that sentence is difficult to understand? Answer: None of it. No citizen of the SDA shall ever be investigated by the various spying and investigative arms of the federal government without first having given, by his behavior, probable cause that an actual crime is being committed and then only after a warrant authorizing that search has been issued by a judge that describes precisely what may be searched and why.
Before any career politician takes his place in the pantheon of our rulers he must first swear an oath. This is true if the career politician is LGBTXY or Z. This is true if he identifies as a she, or vice versa. The oath used in the past would invoke the name of the God of the Bible but that is no longer the case. We are a post-Christian society after all. Now our rulers swear an oath on their own authority. That, of course, is impossible to do unless the person to whom the oath is being sworn is somehow greater than the person swearing the oath. Fortunately in the SDA we all recognize that career politicians are gods so when one of them swears an oath to himself it is okay. Here is what the oath for our King says, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States." What part of that oath do you think King Obama does not understand? Answer: None of it.
The Washington Post reported last week that, "The Obama administration is seeking to amend surveillance law to give the FBI explicit authority to access a person's internet browser history and other electronic data without a warrant in terrorism and spy cases. The administration made a similar effort six years ago but dropped it after privacy advocates and the tech industry raised concerns....Now, at the FBI's request, some lawmakers are advancing legislation that would allow the bureau to obtain electronic communication transactional records using an administrative subpoena known as a national security letter. An NSL can be issued by the special agent in charge of a bureau field office without a judge's approval." Did you get all that? If not, let me explain.
King Obama wants to spy on you. King Obama wants to spy on your internet activity without you knowing it. King Obama has asked the career politicians who populate Congress to give him authority to ignore both his oath of office and the Constitution he swore to uphold and grant him authority to spy on you if he believes you are a terrorist, whatever that is. I am always amazed that the FBI says they will only use this authority in cases of domestic terrorism and I am equally amazed that the sheeple in this country believe that assertion. How does the FBI know I am engaged in terrorist activities to a sufficient degree to issue an NSL to tap my internet activities in the first place? If the FBI agent knows that I am engaging in terrorist activities sufficient to issue an NSL, why not just do it right and get a warrant from a judge as the Constitution requires? If the FBI agent does not know what I am doing then how can the agent claim my situation is a case of potential terrorism? If he can't know that my situation is a case of potential terrorism then the only possible explanation is that the FBI is going to use this new law to go on a gigantic fishing expedition. The only sure thing we know is that millions of innocent people will be caught and harmed by the gigantic electronic gill nets the FBI will be casting.
An NSL is a true piece of government work. If an agent for the FBI wants to harass and spy on a citizen of this land all he has to do is write a letter to himself giving himself the authority to do so. You can thank the Patriot Act for that law. So when an FBI agent gets angry because his wife is consorting with another man, woman, child, animal, person who identifies as a human being or transvestite, he can write a letter to himself giving himself the authority to do pretty much whatever he wants to do to that consort. Wonderful. I can't imagine anything bad ever happening when FBI agents are given unlimited power over us, can you? Just look at the IRS as a test case. The good career bureaucrats entrenched there never abuse their authority.
I don't know if this legislation is going to pass after failing to become law six years ago but I suspect that in the current environment of fear and government worship generated by Boston, San Bernadino and Orlando it stands a good chance at becoming law. When it does I am going to apply for a job as an FBI agent. Then I will be able to legally harass, attack and destroy anyone I don't like. Cool. Oh, yes, I will also swear an oath to myself to uphold a document I do not believe in with the intention of immediately ignoring it. Like the rest of my fellow rulers the hypocrisy of that action will be ignored.