In 1971 Woody Allen directed and starred in a comedy, “Bananas.” The plot entailed the takeover of a fictional, Latin American country, San Marcos by military revolutionaries. The beloved leader of the revolution, once in power, implements decrees of mounting irrationality. The escalation of his paranoia becomes impossible to miss with the diktat that citizens must change their underwear every hour and that underwear will be worn on the outside, so that he can check. Substitute the beloved, military revolutionary for the beloved community organizer; swap tiny San Marcos for the last, remaining superpower and we are just about there.
In his excessive attempts to suppress any will but his own, The Lyin’ King, not satisfied with the Rat Patrol finking requested on his website, is widening his spying net. McClatchy reports: “President Barack Obama has ordered federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues… Federal employees and contractors are asked to pay particular attention to the lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors – like financial troubles, odd working hours or unexplained travel – of co-workers.” Marital activity and personal associations are also on the list of mandated scrutiny by Federal employees on one another. All of this is supposed to predict and prevent future leaks of “sensitive government information.” But evidence shows that this is not the case. McClatchy cites Stephen Fienberg, a professor of statistics and social science at Carnegie Mellon University, who assisted in authoring a report requested by and submitted to the government: “… predicting future leakers seems even more speculative…The emphasis on individual lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors comes at a time when growing numbers of Americans must (already) submit to extensive background checks, polygraph tests and security investigations to be hired or to keep government or federal contracting jobs. The U.S. government is one of the world’s largest employers, overseeing an ever-expanding ocean of information.” So, why expand it more?
Let’s review: This regime stifles free speech and is attempting to strip second amendment rights from Americans. America, in the name of political correctness, is not permitted to pay attention to certain, protected groups even though terrorist activity has, almost exclusively, been initiated by identifiable, racial types. Profiling is a no-no. But the regime can freely label American policy dissenters “domestic terrorists,” profiling, without evidence. The government collects every scrap of information about our lives that may be gleaned from email, social sites, telephone calls and credit card records, all obtained by secret warrant and applied nationwide, not individually. The Washington Post has just discovered that the NSA is also tapping the transatlantic cable. Presidential paranoia goes international. The regime can deploy drones capable of spying through the walls of private homes. Drones may be permitted to kill people. Citizens can be thrown in prison, indefinitely, and denied the right to counsel at presidential whim. All that is required is that the president apply the label “terrorist” to anyone he doesn’t fancy. In 2012 The Lyin’ King issued an Executive Order, authorizing the takeover of every form of communication, public and private, including the internet, in case of “crisis or national emergency.” Section 5.2 of that Executive Order sanctions him to declare such a state, without additional authority. There are no guidelines for how or when such a takeover should end.
These actions are supposed to protect America’s “safety.” But do they?
This regime can’t or won’t find terrorists, even when tipped off about them by foreign governments (e.g. the Tsaernev brothers). It protects terrorists after they kill Americans on foreign soil and at home. Even with all the surveillance, they can’t seem to locate millions of illegal invaders. We are told that invasive government action has proven invaluable in America’s protection. Yet not a single example has been provided that this claim is true. Such actions are not presidential. They are those of a tin-pot dictator. Someone is being “protected.” It just isn’t us.
Ten years ago Hillary Clinton shrieked “… we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” That was then, another administration. Clearly, now, El Jefe does not agree.
Make certain your underwear fits on the outside of your clothes. It won’t be long now.