While the nation fretted over the ouster of one Duckster from the parallel reality of a TV reality show
, more of the protections enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution evaporated.
Just after Christmas, district-court Judge William Pauley ruled that the privacy protections afforded by the Constitution were relative freedoms, not absolutes ones. As such, Fourth-Amendment rights had to be calibrated against a government's need to maintain a database of records that would (putatively) prevent future terrorist attacks.
Paraphrased by The Guardian, "Pauley argued that al-Qaida's 'bold jujitsu' strategy to marry seventh century ideology with 21st century technology made it imperative that government authorities be allowed to push privacy boundaries."
You'd think that the purview of the justice elite is to "marry" American law with Islamist ideology, rather than uphold a timeless principle that states: "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."
"The judgment," continued The Guardian, "directly contradicts the result of a similar challenge in a Washington court [a week earlier] which ruled the NSA's bulk collection program was likely to prove unconstitutional and was 'almost Orwellian' in scale."
Friday's ruling, surmised the vigilant British paper, "makes it more likely that the issue will be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, although it may be overtaken by the decision of Barack Obama on whether to accept the recommendations of a White House review panel to ban the NSA from directly collecting such data."
Indeed, in August, media-enabled megalomaniac Obama told a rapt press corps that, in his magnanimity, he'd be prepared to "jiggle" his surveillance apparatus here and there to better allay unnecessary fears ("provide greater assurances," as the president put it).
In his remarks, Big Daddy said—in defiance of the evidence—that he was comfortable "the NSA program [was] not being abused," going on to promise that he'd outsource the matter to a new hire: A civil liberties officer. (CNN's Jessica Yellin was in estrus
This is the inglorious history of American freedom and federalism. In the rare event that the Supreme Court refuses to play along (as nicely as plaything Justice John G. Roberts did for ObamaCare)—there is always a perfectly legal, extra-constitutional, quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, quasi-judicial, "independent" regulatory commission or executive agency to kill off or override constitutional protections.
A "civil liberties officer," for example.
The nice men in periwigs who came up with the Fourth Amendment were recklessly naive to imagine that branches of a government, each of whose power is enhanced when the power of the other branches grows, would serve to check one another. The idea of a judiciary that would police the executive as an arm of a self-correcting tripartite government was worse than naive.
As "luck" would have it, legislation that flouts the Fourth Amendment was previously in place to provide Pauley with all the positive-law backing the judge needed to justify an anti-constitutional ruling. To wit, the grounds upon which the New York jurist dismissed this ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) case against the NSA were, primarily, "that bulk collection was [already] authorized under existing laws allowing 'relevant' data collection to be authorized by secret US courts."
Here you have the essence of modern-day, Managerial-State America. Natural law, common-law and Constitution have been nullified; buried under the rubble of legislation, statute, precedent, ad infinitum,
rights having long-since been outsourced to the "better" judgment of bureaucrats and hired "experts." In this case, to Eric Holder's Department of Justice.
Not only has Obama "the sinner" trusted Holder his "sin eater"
with the expansion of surveillance-state USA; he has, it would appear, charged him with dealing a one-two Knockout punch to white America. Eric Holder's first arrest in the string of Knockout attacks
across the country is a first in more than one way.
The arrest is unique in that it is of a white offender. Knockout attacks have been, almost exclusively, black-on-white hate crimes.
Were it not so disquieting for what it portends, this single arrest would be as comical as the specter of
global-warming scientists marooned in Antarctic ice so densely packed that no man-made machinery can affect it.
Heeding Holder, the U.S. attorney for the southern district of Texas has remanded Conrad Alvin Barrett (27 years old) to prison for breaking the jaw of a man (79 years old), while "laughing and saying; 'Knockout'" as he beat it.
The question is not whether this is a good arrest. If he's guilty, let Barrett rot. The question is, why have there been no arrests for the multiple killings and maiming of innocents by feral black thugs across the country?
Befitting a banana republic, Holder, who carries water for President Camacho,
is likely attempting to deploy the law to frame the Knockout phenomenon as an equal-opportunity crime. This is the administration's ultimate racial reprisal against white victims of hate crimes: "know thy place, Honky!"
MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry will no doubt deem
the "banana" usage here to be racist, "conceived by a group of wealthy white men who needed to . . . render [a black man] inferior and unequal and diminish his accomplishments." This is what our unsharpened pencil thinks of the word "Obamacare."
But Obama and his fans "can't have their banana and eat it."
It is an incontrovertible fact that under Strong Man Obama, America's banana-republic- and surveillance-state credentials are that much stronger.