Perhaps there is some hope for the Republic after all

Is Sen. Ron Wyden trying to warn the public about an unknown government surveillance effort that affects domestic communications? The Oregon Democrat isn’t saying, leaving experts guessing as he presses a cryptic inquiry.

On Thursday the privacy advocate's office circulated to reporters a letter Wyden sent to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, demanding that Coats offer a third answer to a question about government surveillance.

The question, first asked by Wyden at a June 7 hearing and restated Thursday, seems straightforward: “Can the government use FISA Act Section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic?”

Click here for the rest of what I consider to be a bigger scandal than Watergate and the coup d'etat "gate"(i.e. the Russian investigation against our president) combined! 

Views: 133

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

THAT's what I want to know. How the hell does domestic = foreign??

IT DOES NOT!! This is 0bama and his bullshit again!!

Any, and every thing coming from the mouth of Wyden fits into three categories. One, patently stupid. Two, based on ignorance without limitation, and three, completely designed to advance the agenda of the Left, and the truth can go straight to hell.

This man is not to be considered as a Senator interested in anything other than his own personal vain attempt at relevance. He is a waste, period.

Sometimes people even look like what they are.  And he does, in spades.

FISA has no provision to gather domestic intel thru ease dropping... or any means.  FISA stands for FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT...  Surprise, The FOREIGN INTEL SURVEILLANCE ACT does not authorize DOMESTIC intel surveillance?

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

Why would a US Senator think otherwise... FISA doesn't authorize domestic surveillance, and any incidental collection from a domestic source is supposed to be 'masked'  (protected/hidden) without a FISA Judge, issuing a FISA warrant,  which provides authorization to unmask... the domestic source.

Yes, one would think so. So why hasn't the National Intelligence Agency responded the way you just did? 

Why do tyrants do what they do?  Answer that question and you will know why the NSA and our intel services act the way they do.

The most severe threat this Nation has faced since the Civil War is, once again, not a foreign one, but criminals within determined to utterly control the government and the public by the incessant effort to abolish patriotism and sovereignty, replacing it with dependence rather than the independence our Founders were willing to give their lives for.

All government agencies have been compromised by this assault continuing over many years. Justice is largely a joke and corruption is now the normal means in doing business. The free press is now a criminal enterprise only following the orders they are given rather than presenting useful information regarding events.

If this condition is not stopped and turned around, then we will not survive, and America will be lost. High stakes, indeed.

Dale:

I could agree more or said it better...

 One of the FISA Act Section 702, Section 702. Title VII, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), “Procedures for. Targeting Certain Persons Outside the United States Other ...

New England Law Review: Volume 48, Number 1 - Fall 2013:
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1610278607
New England Law Review - 2014 - ‎Law
2 (2013) (requiring semiannual reports of Section 215 and Section 702 surveillance in ... 191 See,e.g., FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012,Pub. L. No. ... Constitutional and common law doctrines dating back to the Magna Carta ...

First you look up a act, then you study the policy, see if it was a Constitutional Act, or a Federal Mandate, such as legislation for regulations.

 [PDF]Justice-Commission-Presentation-for-TBK-7-19 ... - Take Back Kentucky
www.takebackkentucky.com/.../Justice-Commission-Presentation-for-TB.......
due process provision was found in the Magna Charta, as well as early state .... Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over ...

Legislation for Regulations, the solution to instate Laws, as a way to govern without a so said violation of the Constitution. The Proxy of the system, is seen as  Magna Carta Acts, by the Democratic Democracy, and Obama,the Clinton's were gifted with the ability to do so. The Bush Family, pushed such Congressional Acts, under the legislation body of the UK.

 People see it, but they lack the ability to read through the cluster of codes.

Trump, now has very dangerous goals, the last President that tried to remove the Fed, died.

 My last reply on this subject !

I have one to ask, seeing how Jason is tripping every one out, including me, ready here it is.

 I know you seen the little Conspiracy Theory of (NAFTA) North American Trade Agreement, of which Trump does not like,but the NAFTA is listed as a NAFTA Magna Carta Treaty,

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

 

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

 

Questions and Deceptions Of the Constitutional Democratic Democracy

 With bias, and not in respect to the Republican Party or the Democrat party of We The People. The Republic Of America. 

1. Why would the framers insist that even the most insignificant federal regulations should trump even the most important of state constitutional provisions?
2.  If a state makes criminal an action using language identical to language in a federal statute criminalizing the same action, is the state law preempted?  Clearly, there would be no conflict between federal and state law, but might state criminal enforcement jeopardize federal enforcement, or might the federal government be seen as having occupied the field of criminal enforcement?  (See Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), in which the Supreme Court found preempted a state sedition law virtually identical in its reach with the federal sedition law.)
3.  If the federal government has occupied a field of regulation, for preemption purposes it becomes important to precisely identify the boundaries of that field.  What suggestions to you have for how that inquiry ought to be conducted?
4.  Don't punitive damages against a nuclear plant have the same practical effect as direct state regulation of the plant?  What is the basis for finding the latter preempted but the former not in Silkwood?
5.  How should we read federal statutes for preemption purposes?  Should we read them normally, as Justices Thomas and Scalia contend, or should we read them narrowly ( a presumption against preemption) as the other justices in Cippollone argued?

LOL Tif

Hell Ya ! You Go Girl ! LMAO

1. Why would the framers insist that even the most insignificant federal regulations should trump even the most important of state constitutional provisions? 

First the framers never insisted that federal regulations should trump state constitutional provisions.... they limited the powers of the federal government to SPECIFIC powers as contained in Article 1, Section 8 and 9. They also, restricted their ability to make Laws to those specific areas and nothing more.  

Next, the Constitution clearly limits the scope of the Federal Government too making only those Laws and establishing those Treaties that PURSUE the Constitution... remain within the four corners of the Constitution.  The Federal Government may not make Laws or ratify Treaties that fall outside of their Constitutional Powers as delegated in the Constitution... Period.

Finally, the Federal Government has passed Statutory law, promulgated regulations and  Treaties that don't make Constitutional muster... they exceed the authority of the President and Congress. Fundamental changes or amendments to the US Constitution may only be made pursuant to Article 4 of the US Constitution and require 3/4ths of the States to ratify them.  Therefore, any Treaty or statutory Law that is clearly outside of the four corners of the Constitution are not enforceable.  

The State's and the People have abdicated their Constitutional sovereignty and power... under Article 9 and 10 of the US Constitution... to the Federal Government.  They have permitted the Federal Government and its Courts to grossly exceed the limits on their powers.  The Courts for example are limited in there Jurisdiction over the States, by Article 3, Section 1, Clause 2,  in all cases affecting States the Supreme Court alone has original jurisdiction.  The inferior Federal Courts have NO... Zero... Constitutional Jurisdiction to hear cases involving a State.  

The abdication of the People and the State, to properly restrain the Federal Government, has made the Constitution moot as a lawful document.  Until the Federal Courts, Congress and the Administration are once more bound by the four corners of the Constitution, under the authority of the People and the several States we don't have Constitutional Government at all.  America is being ruled by a plutocracy.... a cabal of the wealthy and their corporations.  The Constitutional voice of the People and there State Governments has been totally mooted.   

2.  If a state makes criminal an action using language identical to language in a federal statute criminalizing the same action, is the state law preempted?  Clearly, there would be no conflict between federal and state law, but might state criminal enforcement jeopardize federal enforcement, or might the federal government be seen as having occupied the field of criminal enforcement?  (See Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), in which the Supreme Court found preempted a state sedition law virtually identical in its reach with the federal sedition law.) 

First, the only Constitutional Jurisdiction for criminal law granted to the Federal Government is limited to Federal Property and the enforcement of Constitutional federal law and regulations. SInce, many of the federal laws are not Constitutional the federal courts have no jurisdiction to enforce them.  Those federal laws which are Constitutional and carry criminal penalties are under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.

Next, State Criminal Statues have precedent, where Federal Courts have no Jurisdictional authority ... powers.  Federal Courts derive their Jurisdiction from the Constitution, Article 3, Sections 2 and 3.  Where both the State and Federal Government have conflicts of Jurisdiction the Federal Courts have a superior claim ... If the Federal Courts decide to press their jurisdictional claim.  If the Federal Courts fail to press their claim, the State's may proceed... with their claim.

3.  If the federal government has occupied a field of regulation, for preemption purposes it becomes important to precisely identify the boundaries of that field.  What suggestions to you have for how that inquiry ought to be conducted?

 I suggest that the State's use NULLIFICATION... ignore Unconstitutional Federal Law and pass legislation that penalizes and or criminalizes anyone who attempts to enforce UnConstitutional law.

Failing that, Jury Nullification... we need to educate juries on their right, as the final artibors of the law, too reject any case as unlawful that ignores the Constitution... its jurisdictional prohibitions and provisions.  Jury's were to be the final line of protection against unjust or unconstitutional law.


4.  Don't punitive damages against a nuclear plant have the same practical effect as direct state regulation of the plant?  What is the basis for finding the latter preempted but the former not in Silkwood?

In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the original verdict, in Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. 464 US 238 (1984), ruling that "the NRC's exclusive authority to set safety standards did not foreclose the use of state tort remedies."[19]

5.  How should we read federal statutes for preemption purposes?  Should we read them normally, as Justices Thomas and Scalia contend, or should we read them narrowly ( a presumption against preemption) as the other justices in Cippollone argued?

I believe that federal statutes must be read 'normally' as intended by Congress... with a view to ensure they are both Constitutional and supported by Statutory authority.  Some regulations may be Constitutional but have no Congressional Statutory Authority.  Promulgating agencies must not be permitted to issue regulations where they have neither constitutional or statutory authority to do so.

That is not the case today... we have many regulations that are not constitutional and have exceeded or have zero statutory authority.

I wounder how long it took you to find this so you copy and paste it ?

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service