Most Americans Welcome the Police State

September 11, 2001, marks the turning point in American history when more than half of the nation’s citizens decided that their irrational fear of terrorists outweighed their love of liberty.

That’s the day Osama bin Laden won the war on terror – Americans are terrified.

A comfortable majority of Americans today have become more like a frightened herd of domesticated farm animals than the brave citizens of earlier generations who demanded freedom and independence.  These folks are vaguely aware of the ever expanding and overbearing abuses of their corrupt government; they understand that we are now living in a police state, but simply don’t give a damn.

Americans are scared of phantom terrorists and are consequently willing to give up their precious constitutional protections of liberty in return for the false sense of security that they can trust their government to protect their lives.

So it should come as no surprise that, after all the scandalous revelations over the last few months about government criminality, corruption, lying, perjury, and blatant violations of our constitutional rights, most Americans are not the least bit alarmed. In fact they welcome it. They want even more of it.

I predict that things will get worse in the future. The situation will not get better in my lifetime. Libertarianism will remain a tiny minority of the American Political spectrum. We will continue speaking out but our voices will be drowned out by the incessant drumbeat of statism.

A new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll finds that most Americans approve of the government's recently revealed spying efforts. Americans, since 9/11/01 are fine with their government spying on them.

Fifty-six percent of respondents said the NSA's tracking of millions of Americans' phone records was an "acceptable" way for the government to monitor terrorism. Almost two-thirds said it was more important for the government to investigate terrorism than to refrain from violating Americans' personal privacy. Forty-five percent believe that the government should have the authority to monitor everyone's emails.

Among the government political parasite class there is a clear consensus that all the intelligence operations which have come to light recently are both legal and necessary to protect the nation from terrorists. There is simply no political pressure, either from inside the government or from the public, to curb its counterterrorism efforts and order the NSA to rein in its massive surveillance of all Americans.

The American people have apparently come to believe that Congress can make laws such as the Patriot Act and others which supersede the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, our founding document which, before 9/11/01, was the supreme law of the land. Laws which viewed in the light of day are unconstitutional are now deemed constitutional by fiat.

Congress can now create secret courts staffed with secret judges who conduct hearings in secret in which they secretly override the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, thereby adversely affecting the lives of all Americans.

Who can challenge them? It’s all a secret. It’s classified. The government goons can do anything they want now and there is nothing we can do about it. We’re not even supposed to know about it. And the majority of Americans don’t give a damn.

Think about it!

“If they want to get you, in time they will,” reveals Edward Snowden, the recent NSA whistleblower. "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards.”

"Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector; Anywhere," said Snowden. "I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail."

The National Security Agency of the United States government now has access to your computer as though it were an open book. It can read your emails; examine your internet searches; review every web site you have ever visited. It has your medical records. It now knows everything it wants to know about you and can track your every electronic move.

With a few key strokes it can tap your telephone, listen in on your private conversations, read your internet chats, and view your video chats. Your credit card and bank accounts are all accessible. They have cracked all your passwords. If a rogue agent wanted to steal your money or freeze your account, or cause you all sorts of trouble, that could be done, and you would never know who did it.

There is nothing to stop the NSA right now from targeting presidential administrations political opponents in exactly the same fashion as the IRS agents have been doing it and those victims would never know what hit them.  

"[T]he the NSA routinely lies in response to congressional inquiries about the scope of surveillance in America,” According to Snowden. And I know he is telling the truth because I saw with my own eyes Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, commit perjury in congressional testimony when he flat out denied under oath facts about this same government surveillance program which he later had to admit were true.  

"You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place," said Snowden. "They [NSA] are intent on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them… What they're doing poses an existential threat to democracy."

As I write this, I note that Journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian says there is a lot more of the story to come from NSA whistle-blower, Edward Snowden. "There are extremely invasive spying programs that the public still does not know about that the NSA regularly engages in or other capabilities that they're developing."

I for one will be following this story with great interest, as I believe, will most libertarians.

The reaction of most other Americans: “Yawn,”

Be a Hero: Defy the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights is really the only legal obstacle in the path of America becoming a Christian theocracy governed by the laws of God and Jesus Christ as set forth verbatim in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible. Many Christians would love that. They have little respect for constitutional rights except, that is, for their own rights.

In fact, had the founders not wisely and promptly amended the Constitution with that Bill of Rights, this country would have devolved into a dictatorial Christian theocracy long ago. There would be no protections for free speech; for religions or philosophies other than Christianity; no right to bear arms; no prohibitions against unreasonable searches; no right to due process; and on and on; no constitutionally guaranteed individual rights at all.

The United States of America would not be much different than Islamic Republics today such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, except the religion would be Christianity. 

Intelligent people should understand this and be grateful for the fact that, theoretically at least, our fundamental individual human rights require respect and enforcement under the law. We must not tolerate any violations whether considered large or small.

If that is not so then the rights of all of us are in jeopardy.

Unfortunately, not all intelligent people feel that way about the constitutional rights of others. When it comes to the rights of others they have no qualms about disrespect, even outright defiance. And many would call such people heroes.

Those who don’t recognize and respect the constitutional rights of others cannot rightfully complain then when the government tramples upon the Bill of Rights in situations like what is happening today, for example, with the Obama administration using the IRS to target political opponents, the DOJ victimizing the press, and the NSA eavesdropping on the private activities of all Americans.

One such Bill of Rights scofflaw is a smart assed little Bible thumping punk from Pickens South Carolina, who decided to use his class valedictorian speaking opportunity at his high school graduation ceremony to deliberately defy the United States Constitution as well as school administrators by proselytizing his Christian religion to the captive audience, the majority of whom naturally was Christian.

Roy Costner got this bright idea when he learned that he had been selected as the top academic student in the graduating class. He was summoned to the principal’s office. “She informed us that we could not have anything about religion or talk about God or Allah or whoever we choose to worship,” he admitted. “And they had to approve the speech prior to me going onto stage.”

Never-mind that, he thought to himself. He decided to make a big theatre production that day by dramatically ripping up his preapproved speech in front of his audience and then launching into a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, all the while knowing full well that he was disrespecting the rights of minority students and parents by shoving his religion in their faces at their public school graduation ceremony, a once in a lifetime occasion which, for good reasons, is supposed to remain secular.

“I think most of you will understand when I say, ‘Our Father, who art in heaven,” he prayed as the crowd began to cheer. He concluded by pointing to the sky and saying, “For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.”

Fuck you, and every one of you non-believers out there! That’s what this little wise guy was telling the non-Christians in his captive public school audience.

Of course, the Christian crowd loved it. They cheered him on as a hero. After all, they are sick and tired of that meddlesome Bill of Rights provision known as the First Amendment Establishment Clause which is supposed to protect the rights of everyone. They’re still angry about the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that public school prayers, including prayers at graduation ceremonies, are unconstitutional. They have no problem with defying the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights when it comes to non-believers.

After his little stunt, Costner went on national television with the Fox News channel to be praised once more as a courageous young hero by commentator/lawyer Megyn Kelly for his deliberate defiance of the law. She loved it too.

This is the same Megyn Kelly who rails against the Obama administrations on a daily basis for its trampling on the Bill of Rights, especially in the case of her own Fox News Channel reporter James Rosen who was targeted as a criminal by the DOJ in a false affidavit to a federal judge for the purpose of eavesdropping on his private email and telephone records. 

A school district spokesperson said the valedictorian will not be penalized for what he did and Costner told Fox News that he has absolutely no regrets. “I’m happy with what I did,” he said. “I want this to glorify God. I want to use this as a witnessing tool and I hope others will stand up for God in our nation.”

“Our community is very passionate about prayer in our schools,” he declared. “I began writing the speech and I knew from the start that I was going to include prayer… I was always taught to stand for what I believe in... That’s what I believe in. I was thanking my God before everyone. I wanted to give him a shout-out…We are not in a country where we have freedom from religion…  We have freedom of religion.”

He’ll be attending Clemson University in the fall to study computer science.

Obviously, he doesn’t believe in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, except insofar as it protects his rights. He has no respect for the First Amendment Establishment Clause or for the rights of others. He actually beleives he has the right to force feed his Christian religion to everyone in public schools whether they like it or not. They should not be free from his religion in their own public school.

If this kid had been an atheist student who ripped up his speech and then launched into a defiant spontaneous diatribe about how glad he was to know that gods are imaginary and religion is a hoax, the uproar of righteous indignation among that crowd of Christians would have been deafening. Little old ladies would have fainted in the aisles. He might have been dragged from the podium by the angry mob and thrashed to death for violating their constitutional rights and ruining their graduation ceremony.

But Atheists are usually fairly reasonable, responsible, logical people who respect the rights of others and expect only the same in return. So I’d be mighty surprised if an atheist kid ever pulled off a stunt like that, much less have gotten away with it. If he did he shouldn’t be allowed to graduate with his class and his freshman year at Clemson should rightfully be delayed at least one semester.

Instead of any punishment at all, however, this little smart assed punk is deemed a first class American hero for defying the Bill of Rights.

Religious Fundamentalism: A Mental Illness Which May Be Cured

A leading neurologist at the University of Oxford in England said recently what I’ve been contending for years: that medical science may one day be able to identify religious fundamentalism as a “mental illness” and a cure it.

“One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated,” she explained, “Somebody who has for example become radicalized to a cult ideology – we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance.”

“I am not just talking about the obvious candidates like radical Islam or some of the more extreme cults,” she added. “I am talking about things like the belief that it is OK to beat your children. These beliefs are very harmful but are not normally categorized as mental illness… In many ways that could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage, that really do a lot of harm.”

Of course the doctor is absolutely right. People don’t normally choose to be mentally ill. They are deceived using consciousness into accepting and acting upon irrationality which can lead to serious consequences for themselves and others. 

Few would argue that religious fundamentalists who commit murder or other horrific crimes in the name of their imaginary gods are acting upon the influence of totally irrational thinking, i.e. insanity. They are properly defined in laymen’s terms as “crazy.” If that sort of thing may be cured with therapeutic treatment this world might become a far better place.

And if such serious cases of insanity might someday be cured, just think of the wonderful possibilities for less serious instances – irrational thinking like bigotry, prejudice, intolerance and superstition.

“God’s word explicitly says homosexuality is a choice, a sin,” says Southern Baptist pastor Tim Reed, of First Baptist Church of Gravel Ridge in Jacksonville, Arkansas. So when the Boy Scouts of America voted to lift its ban on openly gay youths on May 24, Reed said the church had no choice but to cut its charter with Troop 542. “It’s not a hate thing here… It’s a moral stance we must take as a Southern Baptist church.”

The Southern Baptist Convention, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, will soon urge its 45,000 congregations and 16 million members to cut ties with the Scouts, including sponsorship of nearly 4,000 Scout units representing more than 100,000 youths, according to church leaders.

“Southern Baptists are going to be leaving the Boy Scouts en masse,” said Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “With this policy change, the Boy Scouts’ values are contradictory to the basic values of our local churches,” explained Roger “Sing” Oldham, a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention.

This is a perfect example of the kind of irrational thinking that I hope someday might be curable.

I believe that it is indeed possible to cure a bigot with a healthy dose of pure reason.

On the bright side, The National Jewish Committee on Scouting, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sponsors more Scout units than any other faith, have all endorsed the change. The National Catholic Committee on Scouting, which is run with oversight from a bishop, said that allowing gay youths in the Scouts does not conflict with church teaching.

At least there are some good religious folks with us who aren’t infected with the mental disease of religious fundamentalism. That leads me to believe that the rest of them might someday be cured. 

DNA: No Expectation of Privacy

As living beings everywhere we go and almost everything we do leaves behind minute traces of our unique DNA molecules which can potentially be used to identify us as having been there and done that.  

Hairs are continually falling out from our bodies; skin cells are continually sloughing off; and body fluids continually discarded, all of which contain uniquely identifiable DNA. It’s like leaving fingerprints behind except that DNA comparison leads to far more accurate personal identification of an individual than fingerprint analysis and is much easier to obtain.

That’s why, in my opinion, there is no more personal expectation of privacy with a person’s DNA than there is with saliva (which contains that DNA) when it’s left on a paper cup and discarded in the trash. Anyone could retrieve that cup and discern the DNA left behind for identification purposes, including matching it with a database containing DNA samples from unsolved crimes.

In short, no person circulating in society can legally claim an expectation of privacy in regard to their personal identity, and that personal identity should rightfully be employed for the purpose of, among other things, assisting in solving unsolved crimes.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the government has the right to go around unbridled forcing people, without reasonable suspicion and probable cause, to give up DNA samples for the purpose of solving unsolved crimes – that would clearly violate the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures – but taking such samples from arrestees for violent crimes, who are already lawfully in police custody, and comparing them to samples in an unsolved crimes database, does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

That’s why I think that the U.S. Supreme Court got it right in such a case recently, but lamentably for the wrong reasons, as our irascible old friend, Justice Scalia pointed out in his unassailably reasoned dissent. The case is Maryland v. King, decided on June 3, 2013, only two days ago.

After his 2009 arrest on first and second-degree assault charges, booking personnel used a cheek swab to take a DNA sample from arrestee King. The swab was matched to an unsolved 2003 rape, and King was eventually charged and convicted of that crime.

He moved to suppress the DNA match, arguing that the procedure violated the Fourth Amendment. By a 5-4 majority, the Court held that when officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold  a defendant for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

So far, so good, and I agree 100%.

But what Justice Scalia, (in a highly unusual association with the three left leaning Justices on the Court), so aptly and sarcastically pointed out in his dissent is that the majority grounded its decision on a holding that the procedure was valid and necessary to identify the arrestee, when in fact that conclusion is absurd. It was really done for the sole purpose of using the sample to try to solve unsolved crimes; crimes for which there were no probable cause to believe that King was guilty.

Scalia is right. The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. In the few instances in which the Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it always insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime.

I certainly do applaud Justice Scalia for his vigilant stance on the Fourth Amendment. He rightly worries about the potential for police abuse, such as forcefully taking DNA samples from defendants arrested and in custody for routine traffic offenses.

“Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” he warns.

Again, Scalia is correct, but I can’t help but think that when arrestees for crimes, especially violent crimes, are already in lawful police custody, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy for their fingerprints, photographs, and yes, even their DNA if a sample can be taken without undue intrusion. The majority should have decided the case on that basis instead of reaching for absurd conclusions.

A search is not unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes under such circumstances, and the evidence obtained thereby should be available for the purpose of, among other things, assisting the police in their mission of solving unsolved crimes where there is no expectation of privacy in regard to such evidence.

With DNA there is no expectation of privacy. 

Statist Logic

We live within a worldwide political system dominated by statism characterized by the belief of most people that the collective is vastly more important than the individual; the state should substantially control the social and economic affairs of the collective; and the greater good of the collective justifies required and unquestioned sacrifices on the part of the individuals.

Statism has prevailed upon humanity for as long as civilizations have existed. Ancient civilizations were permeated with statism and the statist mindset. Biblical accounts feature a long chronology of statism. Gods, rulers, kings, clergy, aristocrats and politicians are the hallmarks of statism and statist Authority!

The United States of America was created by a few men who understood this and endeavored to change it. England with its monarchy and aristocracy is and remains thoroughly statist. 

But the founder’s ideas have long ago been eviscerated almost completely by wave after wave of statist ideology promoted by statist politicians and religionists demanding sacrifices and craving more and more authority over the political and social lives of their subjects.   

So America today is a statist nation just like every other nation on Earth. The differences are only a matter of degree. Some countries are more or less statist than others. Statism can work with capitalism just as well as with socialism and communism.

In all cases the deceived masses have been conditioned to accept that the state is supreme and that individuals must make sacrifices whether they like it or not for the greater good of the collective.

Examples of statist logic abound, we read about them every day, but I find the following one particularly horrific and classically representative of such malevolent thinking:

In Japan recently the 43 year-old mayor of Osaka explained that the Japanese military's forced prostitution of Asian women before and during World War II was necessary to "maintain discipline" in the ranks and provide rest for soldiers who risked their lives in battle.

Japanese war time WWII sex slaves were necessary for the greater good of the collective he maintains. The discipline and comfort of the raging and pillaging Japanese soldiers – themselves the victims of statism -- required the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of unwilling women who were systematically raped and painfully abused during the Japanese unprovoked conquest of China, Korea and several other Asian nations before and during the war.

He’s not the least bit remorseful or sorry about it. This is a man who understands statism, makes his living by it, and is prepared to justify it to the extreme. I’m sure that he is not the only imperialist Japanese statist who thinks that way.

Almost all of them in the military, using pure statist logic, thought that way while they were committing major atrocities in Asia by treating their conquered subjects like subhuman animals fit for the slaughter. Why not allow some of them to be used as sex slaves while they were at it was the logic. After all, the soldiers needed some rest, relaxation and release -- comfort.

"There is a mountain of definitive iron-hard evidence for the crimes they committed in the Second World War. We hope Japan will face and contemplate their history of aggression and treat it correctly," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei declared.

But this statist Japanese mayor, Toru Hashimoto, who is also co-leader of an emerging conservative political party, told reporters that there wasn't clear evidence that the Japanese military coerced women to become what are euphemistically called "comfort women."

"To maintain discipline in the military, it must have been necessary at that time," he said. "For soldiers who risked their lives in circumstances where bullets are flying around like rain and wind, if you want them to get some rest, a comfort women system was necessary. That's clear to anyone."

Right!

Now that is what I call: statist logic.

Compulsory Education by Self Incrimination

School administrators and teachers in Batavia, Illinois apparently think it is perfectly OK to require students at the local high school to possibly incriminate themselves by answering in writing, with their names printed at the top, a list of survey questions about, among other things, their private emotions together with their use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs during their free time.

In short, these statist compulsory education government goons are systematically violating the federal constitutional rights of students by asking them to reveal private, personal and potentially incriminating information which is none of the school district’s god damned business.

District Superintendent, Jack Barshinger justifies the practice by claiming it is supported by local teachers as a way to stem an increase in student suicides, since many of them reported not being able to tell when a student was having emotional problems.

He insists that the information would not be shared with the police; the answers would be reviewed by social workers, school counselors and psychologists. “We can’t help them if we aren’t aware of their needs,” said Barshinger.

But the proper mission of a public school district, which compels children and parents by law to participate in the system, is to provide its young students with a basic education, not to snoop around into their intimate private emotions and invade their personal privacy by violating their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

John Dryden, a social studies instructor at the school, seeing the situation for what it was, took it upon himself to do the right thing by advising students of their right not to incriminate themselves before giving them the survey questions list which had each student’s name printed on it.  “I made a judgment call,” he explained. “There was no time to ask anyone.”

This is one teacher who really was looking out for his kids.

But for that he now faces disciplinary action and a black mark in his employment record from the school district which thinks that the children under its jurisdiction have no constitutional rights or that even if they do, such rights may be violated with impunity.  

So advising children of their constitutional rights is not considered part of the learning experience in school districts practicing compulsory education by self incrimination.  

All the President’s Liars

Lying and outright perjury, which is lying while under oath during a judicial or official legislative proceeding, are so commonplace within the highest levels of the United States federal government executive branch today that the Average American hardly takes notice, much less demands that anything be done about it.

The Department of State, Department of Justice, and Department of Treasury, three of the most important cabinet level departments of President Obama’s administration, for example, are riddled with liars and perjurers from the top down.

Let’s start with the State Department formerly headed by Secretary of State, Hillary R. Clinton.

She, in concert with her subordinates, and even the President himself, brazenly lied and then later committed perjury in her sworn testimony before Congress concerning the nature of her involvement in and responsibility for the now infamous Benghazi Libya scandal resulting in the death of American Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans during the September 11, 2012 Islamist terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate compound.

The evidence is now crystal clear that Hillary Clinton and her State Department underlings were culpable for the fact that they failed to heed repeated security warnings about the likelihood of potential terrorist attacks on the compound, failed to provide sufficient protection to our Ambassador and embassy personnel even though they were begging for it again and again, and then attempted to cover up their fatal culpability by lying and committing perjury.

Secretary of State Clinton and her subordinates knew from the beginning according to this evidence that the attack was a planned and orchestrated an Al Qaeda inspired radical Islamist group terrorist attack.

Yet she presided, with her staff and the President, over a deliberate cover-up of this fact by lying over and over, claiming that it was a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Islamic video produced by an obscure American cleric; claiming that she wasn't aware of any security threats, or any need to provide more protections to embassy personnel.

All of these lies were deliberately concocted and disseminated for the purpose of covering her own negligent and culpable ass and minimizing any potential damage to Obama’s chances for reelection to a second term in the White House. After all, President Obama was campaigning upon the premise that Al Qaeda had been defeated and was on the run. The truth wouldn't have made him look good.

After all of that, Clinton had the audacity to testify before a Congressional committee that none of this negligent and culpable conduct, none of her brazen lies, made the slightest bit of difference as to what happened to the four dead Americans in Benghazi.

And the majority of Americans either believe she is right or simply don’t care about it one way or another. Clinton will most likely be the Democratic Party nominee for the next President of the United States.

Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice has been caught red handed violating the First Amendment constitutional rights of the Associated Press (AP) and its reporters by secretly obtaining their telephone records illegally without their knowledge or consent while attempting to catch a government leaker of classified information to the press.

Holder testified before Congress that he knows nothing about such matters; that he recused himself from that decision, leaving it to his deputy; and that he personally would not engage in such conduct. "With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something I've ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy," he swore under oath.

But just one week after the AP revelations we learned that Holder personally authorized the same kind of secret warrant to seize the telephone and email records of Fox News reporter James Rosen in an identical type of case.

Rosen reported in June of 2009 on leaked government classified secret information obtained from a confidential source that North Korea might respond to UN sanctions with more nuclear tests. FBI investigators ultimately determined that State Department security adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim was the leaker.

Note that it is not a crime under U.S. law for journalists to solicit from confidential sources and then report classified information. It’s their job and such reporting is protected by freedom of the press provisions of the First Amendment.

But the FBI and Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department wanted to prove their case against Kim in part by secretly seizing the telephone and private email records of reporter Rosen, something which is not permissible under the law unless there was probable cause to believe that Rosen was committing a crime under a wartime law known as the Espionage Act.

So in order to get around that impediment they concocted a search warrant and a deliberately false affidavit for support which specifically alleged that there was in fact probable cause to believe that reporter Rosen had committed a crime; “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator,” when they knew full well that the allegation was a bald faced lie.

Attorney General Eric Holder authorized that false affidavit knowing that it was false.

On the basis of that false affidavit; that brazen lie; that perjury under oath; a federal magistrate allowed Holder and his DOJ to secretly seize Rosen’s private telephone records and read his private emails in total violation of his federal constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

Holder lied about that to Congress while he was under oath. Once again he committed perjury.

This man, the highest law enforcement official in the land,  is a liar and a perjurer. He should by all rights be occupying a prison cell. Instead he is still the Attorney General of the United States and the average American could care less about it.

Finally, we have the Treasury Department of the United States and its Gestapo pitbull unit known as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It has admitted recently that certain unnamed operatives deliberately targeted for political purposes conservative groups seeking tax exempt status under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code for harassment and delay tactics.

Recall that President Obama's 2008 campaign was demanding the Justice Department criminally prosecute conservative groups with tax-exempt status. Then, last year his re-election campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. So, there isn’t much room for doubt here that President Obama himself is behind this latest scandal. His underlings were just doing what he has been calling for all along.

Several IRS top dogs, including the former director, have already testified under oath before Congress that they know nothing about it and had nothing to do with it.

More lies; more perjury. It never ends.

Finally, Lois Lerner, the IRS director of Exempt Organizations, came before Congress under a subpoena with an opening statement declaring that she herself had done absolutely nothing wrong: “I’m innocent,” she swore, “I’ve done nothing wrong.” “I've committed no crime.”

But then she asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and refused to answer a single question from the congressmen on the committee.

“I’m innocent but I’m not going to answer your questions,” she said. Yet this lady had just waived her Fifth Amendment rights; she waived her right to remain silent only moments before when she swore under oath that she had done nothing wrong.

The chairman of the committee was within his authority right then and there to hold her in contempt of Congress and order the marshal to take her straight to the Congressional jail if she continued to remain silent.

She can’t have her cake and eat it too. She can't commit perjury and then refuse to answer questions about her testimony under oath. But that’s exactly what she has so far been permitted to do by our gutless Congress.

They're not going to do much either about all the President’s liars.