A Black Journalist Writes About His Negative Opinion of Barack Obama

Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous. I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.

I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.

The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.

Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same. I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.

He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood...

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."

When Is A Democratic Republic Neither?

    ....Apparently when the chief executive is Barack Obama.
 
       Americans are not thirsty for another war in the middle east. In fact, Americans are downright hostile to the idea in numbers so stark, that even the full time Obama apologist NBC admits the truth. With over 80% of people polled unwilling to support military action in Syria and our traditional allies turning their backs on Barack Obama, the president is so determined to support wasting the lives of our young men and women and billions of dollars much of it borrowed from China, to insure that our enemy, Al Qaeda flourishes in a new Islamic regime.
      
       Many see Obama's actions as inconsistent with the facts and forecast another war without a solid plan, defined objectives, or realistic exit strategy.
 
       Others concede Obama may be playing a dangerous game of one-ups-man ship with Vladimir Putin, which Obama with his deficient foreign policy skills, would lose dramatically.
       Georgy Mirsky is a professor at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations in Moscow and writes in Financial Times;
Every now and then one of my English-speaking colleagues asks me what Russia will do if the western powers make good on their threats and strike at Syria. My answer is: nothing. Russia does not have to do anything, it can just sit quiet. The situation is advantageous to Moscow. Our leaders will be only too happy to see the US start a new war it cannot win.

Consider the options. A land invasion is out of the question. Sustained air bombardment risks the loss of pilots, and would therefore be unacceptable for the public in the west. The likeliest avenue is missile strikes; President Bashar al-Assad’s regime will undoubtedly suffer – but Russia and Iran will be able to make up for any losses. The allies will give Mr Assad a bloody nose and that is it. Punitive strikes cannot bring about a turning point in the hostilities. Any substantial change in the correlation of forces on the ground is not feasible.

         There appears to be no plan, no goal, no US interests at stake and no reason for this silliness, except for the rank ego of an inexperienced, undisciplined president's obsession with finding his name and photo on the front page.

RINO's Assisting the Socialists Ruining America

Increased Contempt for the Law Highlights Obama's Second Term

    from FOX News:

The increasing lawlessness with which President Barack Obama has been acting in his second term is not going unnoticed.

In fact, in a strong rebuke last week to the unilateral actions being taken by the Obama administration, a federal appeals court came down hard on the administration’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission by ruling that delaying a decision on a proposed nuclear waste storage facility was in violation of federal law. In the majority opinion, the judges declared that the administration was “simply flouting the law,” and that President Obama “may not decline to follow a statute or prohibition simply because of policy objections.”

President Obama’s fall from grace as the candidate elected to rein in executive power in 2008 is more than tragic – it sets scary new precedents for the behavior of future presidents from either party.
Just take for example how President Obama has selectively enforced his own health care law:

In 2011, the Obama administration unilaterally ended the CLASS Act – a long-term care insurance plan included in ObamaCare that proved to be unworkable. Congress would later pass a repeal of this program, but it still signaled a disturbing beginning to the President’s pattern of selectively enforcing his law.

Last month, the President issued a one-year delay on the employer mandate contained in ObamaCare that would force large employers to insure their employees or pay a penalty. When my House Republican colleagues and I moved forward with 35 House Democrats to pass legislation that would codify the delay into law, the President responded by issuing a veto threat on a bill that would have made his actions legally binding.

The President has now unilaterally ignored legal statute and issued a delay on anti-fraud measures within the law. Taxpayers now are at significant risk for fraud and abuse as the President nefariously seeks to push as many people as possible onto ObamaCare subsidies whether they are eligible or not.
 And just last week it was reported that the President has delayed provisions of ObamaCare that would limit out-of-pocket health care costs on individuals and families. Just as the President caved to pressure from big business on the employer mandate delay, he has now caved to insurance companies over the best interests of American families.

The Obama administration has even gone so far as to circumvent a GOP amendment to the health care law that would have required members of Congress and their staffs to abide by the same exchange rules as Americans across the country. The Office of Personnel and Management issued a ruling giving Congress the unique ability to participate in the exchanges while still having employer-subsidized premiums.

The precedent these actions set for future administrations should scare all Americans.
At a press conference before the President left town on vacation, he was asked about his decision to pick and choose what parts of the law he enforced. His response was that, “in a normal political environment,” he would have contacted the Speaker of the House and asked for help to “tweak” the law. One must wonder what the President considers a “normal” political environment – is it one where his party controls the House and has a super majority in the Senate?

Again, the precedent these actions set for future administrations should scare all Americans. And they should worry the President as well. If President Obama can unilaterally decide which parts of the law he must enforce, what is to prevent the next president, regardless of party,  from unilaterally deciding to not enforce these and other laws passed by Congress? And how far is he willing to test Americans’ patience with his increasingly imperial presidency?

Congressman Diane Black represents Tennessee's 6th congressional district and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees. She has been a registered nurse for more than 40 years.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/23/obama-fall-from-grace-sets-scary-precedent-for-future-presidents/#ixzz2ctb8gnI3

SWAT Team Raids Texas Organic Farm

     If it wasn't so transparently stupid and dangerous, it would be funny. Any city with this much money to waste, needs to be reducing budgets, firing useless personnel and shutting down departments.

 
     The City of Arlington decided to send a SAT Team to "enforce" several pathetically questionable Code Enforcement "violations", held citizens at machine gun point, for TEN HOURS while they destroyed their organic vegetables.
     Cities have become the new crack addicts, living for the next federal national security "grant" and unable to survive without a constant stream of hits. It has become so pathetic that cities regularly send out SWAT teams to enforce everything from flower beds, to wood piles not perfectly stacked. All this is to justify the never ending demand for higher budgets.
 
      The city of Arlington officials cannot justify these extravagant violations of public safety, honesty and decency, so they refuse to answer and hide behind mountains of lies, hidden in paperwork.
      The time has come to shut down the overuse of SWAT teams, pare down the cost of unnecessary law enforcement and force federal, state and local governments to learn to live within their means, before more people are murdered by over zealous, black masked, thugs wearing badges.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/swat-team-raids-texas-organic-farm-holds-residents-at-gunpoint/#9xDSfPU1jJgz4568.99

How Barack Obama's "Secret" Courts and Threats Killed a Secure E-mail Company

From: THE NEW YORKER

In mid-July, Tanya Lokshina, the deputy director for Human Rights Watch’s Moscow office, wrote on her Facebook wall that she had received an e-mail from edsnowden@lavabit.com. It requested that she attend a press conference at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport to discuss the N.S.A. leaker’s “situation.” This was the wider public’s introduction to Lavabit, an e-mail service prized for its security. Lavabit promised, for instance, that messages stored on the service using asymmetric encryption, which encrypts incoming e-mails before they’re saved on Lavabit’s servers, could not even be read by Lavabit itself.

Yesterday, Lavabit went dark. In a cryptic statement posted on the Web site, the service’s owner and operator, Ladar Levison, wrote, “I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.” Those experiences led him to shut down the service rather than, as he put it, “become complicit in crimes against the American people.” Lavabit users reacted with consumer vitriol on the company’s Facebook page (“What about our emails?”), but the tide quickly turned toward government critique. By the end of the night, a similar service, Silent Circle, also shut down its encrypted e-mail product, calling the Lavabit affair the “writing [on] the wall.”
Which secret surveillance scheme is involved in the Lavabit case? The company may have received a national-security letter, which is a demand issued by a federal agency (typically the F.B.I.) that the recipient turn over data about other individuals. These letters often forbid recipients from discussing it with anyone. Another possibility is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court may have issued a warrant ordering Lavabit to participate in ongoing e-mail surveillance. We can’t be completely sure: as Judge Reggie Walton, the presiding judge of the FISA court, explained to Senator Patrick Leahy in a letter dated July 29th, FISA proceedings, decisions, and legal rationales are typically secret. America’s surveillance programs are secret, as are the court proceedings that enable them and the legal rationales that justify them; informed dissents, like those by Levison or Senator Ron Wyden, must be kept secret. The reasons for all this secrecy are also secret. That some of the secrets are out has not deterred the Obama Administration from prosecuting leakers under the Espionage Act for disclosure of classified information. Call it meta-secrecy.
If Lavabit attempted to resist a FISA order, the first thing it would have done is petition the FISA court to review the order, arguing that it was flawed in some way. According to some legal commentators, such an argument, no matter how it is styled, would almost certainly fail; the FISA court so frequently approves surveillance orders that it is often criticized as a rubber stamp. If Lavabit’s petition failed, it could still drag its feet and force the government to petition the FISA court to issue an order compelling Lavabit to comply. This would give Lavabit another opportunity to press its case.
If Lavabit lost a petition to compel, and still refused to coöperate, it could seek review before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which has limited power to review FISA orders and is rarely adversarial. According to Judge Walton, only one company has had the chance to argue before the F.I.S.C.R. as a party objecting to an order—Yahoo, which initially refused to coöperate with the Prism surveillance dragnet.
If Lavabit lost its appeal to the F.I.S.C.R., and still refused to coöperate, it would run a serious risk of being found in contempt; that’s how most courts punish those who disobey its orders. The FISA court is no different. According to the court’s rules of procedure, a party may be held in contempt for defying its orders. The secret court may consider many punishments—secret fines for each day of noncompliance, or even secret jail time for executives. The idea behind civil contempt is that “you hold the key to your own cell.” If you comply, the punishment stops. But hold out long enough and your contempt may be criminal, and your compliance will not end the jail sentence or displace the fine.
With these powers, the FISA court could dismantle a stubborn e-mail service provider, or Facebook, piece by piece. An angry FISA court could demand increasingly severe fines, identify more and more officers for jail time, and make it impossible for Facebook to operate within the United States by issuing more (and more invasive) warrants. In this scenario, the FISA court would order Mark Zuckerberg, hoodie and all, to walk down the hallway to the FISA court’s reportedly unmarked door and explain whether he would coöperate. If he refused to comply, the court could jail him—and then pressure Sheryl Sandberg, and on down the line. Aside from the risk of the public finding out its surveillance methods, the court would only be limited by its willingness to violate the privacy of Facebook’s users, and inflict pain on shareholders, who would not have received the usual disclosures about the company’s books. (In an HSBC money-laundering case, for instance, afraid of harming the shareholders and destabilizing the financial system, the government ultimately blinked, and settled outside of criminal proceedings.)
Because FISA proceedings are secret, there are only a few examples of dissent. In 2004, the Internet service provider Calyx was served with a national-security letter. The letter came with a gag order, which Calyx’s owner, Nicholas Merrill, succeeded in getting partially lifted—after more than six years of litigation. In the meantime, Calyx shut down, with the goal of one day reopening as a nonprofit Internet service provider focussed on privacy. In 2007, a former Qwest Communications International executive (appealing his conviction for insider trading) alleged that the government revoked opportunities for hundreds of millions of dollars of government contracts when Qwest objected to participating in a warrantless surveillance program. The government refused to comment on the executive’s allegations. And, finally, Yahoo resisted FISA orders in 2007 and 2008, according to published reports and Judge Walton’s letter to Leahy. But Yahoo ultimately buckled under the threat of contempt. In each case, the resisting company wanted to inform the public, but was initially denied.
Any one company rightly fears the FISA court’s ability to punish contempt. But the N.S.A.’s surveillance programs are impossible without robust coöperation from America’s telecommunications and Internet companies. Silicon Valley and the telecoms can’t press this leverage because meta-secrecy keeps the companies trapped in a prisoner’s dilemma. Microsoft doesn’t know if Google is heroically resisting. Tim Cook doesn’t know if Mark Zuckerberg has endured a secret jail sentence for freedom’s cause. No company wants to be the only one to disclose its coöperation with Prism and other programs, lest it appear to be weak on privacy and set itself at a competitive disadvantage. That’s why Google and other companies are petitioning for the right to disclose their participation. And, of course, nobody wants to be the first public company taken apart in contempt proceedings.
If Silicon Valley can coördinate its dissent, they stand a chance of moving the policy needle. For the government, meta-secrecy has the added benefit of deflecting the legitimacy that big business would bring to critics of the surveillance state; the few known public dissenters are painted as a rogue’s gallery of hackers, leakers, spies, and traitors. Depending on what he does next, Levison, a businessman in Texas, could join those ranks.
Levison’s statement provides few clues about what he might do. His mention of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is a hint that he was ordered to do something—one of the only ways a case can go directly to a Court of Appeals is to challenge an agency order. A national-security letter is one such order, but there are at least two reasons to think Lavabit was ordered to participate in ongoing surveillance. First, the strategy of challenging national-security letters in the district courts has had some success—why deviate? Second, Levison described his decision as a choice between “becom[ing] complicit” and shutting down. One of the few publicly available national-security letters demands that a company not “disable, suspend, lock, cancel, or interrupt service” until the obligations of the letter are fulfilled. If Levison was ordered to give up Snowden’s encrypted data, refused, and then shut down the company, it’s unlikely he’d be going on the offensive in the Fourth Circuit. And while Lavabit’s encryption and privacy measures make brute force unattractive, the F.B.I. could have gotten a warrant to raid Lavabit and seize its hard drives or servers. Shutting down only mattered if Lavabit’s coöperation did.
There are already two theories as to what a FISA order against Lavabit may have looked like. First, FISA could have ordered Lavabit to insert spyware or build a back door for the N.S.A., as American and Canadian courts reportedly did to the encrypted e-mail service Hushmail, in 2007. Second, FISA could have ordered Lavabit to permit the N.S.A. to intercept users’ passwords. But the truth may never come out.
In a press conference on Friday, President Obama, in addition to pledging greater transparency surrounding the use of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which the government invokes to gather telephone records, promised to work with Congress to improve the FISA court. He proposed to make its deliberations more transparent and more adversarial, so that FISA judges hear from advocates for both “security” and “liberty.” Most important, he committed to establishing public trust in “the whole elephant” of America’s surveillance programs. That will require open debate—something this Administration has not guaranteed thus far.
Michael Phillips is an associate at a Wall Street litigation firm.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/08/the-government-versus-your-secrets.html?printable=true&currentPage=all#ixzz2cSpu6235

Peegy Noonan - What We LOSE IF We Give Up Privacy

     Columnist and writer, Peggy Noonan seems to have found the nail and decided to hit it on the head.
     Finally.
     Living, as we do, in an encroaching police state, privacy has become one of those "inconvenient" truths that so offend the present administration.
     Noonan says, "
What is privacy? Why should we want to hold onto it? Why is it important, necessary, precious?
Is it just some prissy relic of the pretechnological past?
We talk about this now because of Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency revelations, and new fears that we are operating, all of us, within what has become or is becoming a massive surveillance state. They log your calls here, they can listen in, they can read your emails. They keep the data in mammoth machines that contain a huge collection of information about you and yours. This of course is in pursuit of a laudable goal, security in the age of terror.
Is it excessive? It certainly appears to be. Does that matter? Yes. Among other reasons: The end of the expectation that citizens' communications are and will remain private will probably change us as a people, and a country. 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323639704579015101857760922.html
     Privacy matters a lot. It has just become somewhat inconvenient for a government that chooses to prey upon citizens, rather than serve them.
     Public Servants? That term went out of style and Barack Obama intends that it never return.
Al Qaeda is still here, its networks are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security, and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees. "There has to be somebody supervising them who knows what's right. . . . Terrorism is not going to go away. But we need someone in charge of the whole apparatus who has read the Constitution."
Advances in technology constantly up the ability of what government can do. Its technological expertise will only become deeper and broader. "They think they're getting to how you think. The technology is such that with the masses of databases, then privacy will get even weaker."
Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious of what NSA can do."

When It Comes to Telling the Truth - Obama Fails Miserably

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.