I received this email from Ted Keer:
----------------
I am surprised, shocked, to see Obama has indicted Dinesh D'Souza for his political documentary, Obama, 2016.

Conservative filmmaker behind anti-Obama documentary indicted for violating election law

There are three criteria under which a government becomes a dictatorship--when it forbids freedom of speech, when it forbids freedom of travel, and when it prosecutes political crimes.

The indictment of writer Dinesh D'Souza violates the First Amendment and is a prosecution of a political crime.

Remember that Attorney General Eric Holder wouldn't prosecute Black Panthers for wielding clubs against voters in Philadelphia, but he will prosecute this.

It is time for street protests.
--------------------------------

My reply to Ted:

That's disheartening.... to say the least. I'm stunned that he would go that far.

There are a couple of other indicators that a country is veering into dictatorship: When the executive branch makes or changes laws without legislative input or refuses to enforce laws already on the books - the end of rule by law - and we continue to see more and more of that. Obama even takes it out to the stump and promises that he will act if congress won't (which makes me feel like he is testing the water for some kind of take-over). Another sign of a dictatorship is when a vote is no longer a real vote (as in when voters are not allowed to vote, or it is just a show vote, or rigged vote, or when voter fraud becomes significant - as with Senator Franken's election).

Intimidation of the press, loss of freedom of speech, loss of the power to vote in changes, abandoning the rule of law, the blatant disregard of the constitution, a pattern of bald faced on-going lies to the people by the president, lies to congress by top officials while under oath, use of federal agencies to spy on citizens without probable cause, use of the IRS to target political opponents.... With Congress behaving like a potted plant, I feel like he is testing how far he can go. It is a frightening feeling.

I see no hope for the country until the media finally realizes how bad things have become and get over their love affair with Obama and with Progressive politics.

When Obama won his second term, I bought a sailboat before the month ended. I'm now nearly finished outfitting it for long distance, deep water sails and will be leaving for an extended cruise to the South Pacific and points West in a few months. My Galt's Gulch

Steve,

When Obama won his second term, I bought a sailboat before the month ended. I'm now nearly finished outfitting it for long distance, deep water sails and will be leaving for an extended cruise to the South Pacific and points West in a few months. My Galt's Gulch

Interesting.  Are you going it alone or what are your plans? (You don't have to answer this question)  Where are you going? (Again, no need to answer)  Are you making a perminent change on residence?  (Again no need to answer)

I'm very interested in sailing.  If you are planning on going on a shorter test trip around the coast I'd be interested in learning the ropes, if you don't mind me inviting myself.

I see no hope for the country until the media finally realizes how bad things have become and get over their love affair with Obama and with Progressive politics.

Given that the mainstream media is primarily funded by printed money first given out to the elite bankers and their friends...  who tend to chose who to hire and who to fire...  I don't think FDIC TV is going to change course any time soon.  At least... not until its corrupted source of finance discontinues.

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 1/24, 6:43am)

Yes, I would like you book references.

Steve,

To the best of my knowledge, the head of the Justice Department is 'Holder', not Obama'.

Likewise, to the best of my knowlege, DoJ appointments are really not that good at following Executive-Branch mandates.

Think of Starr and Clinton...

Anyway, having read the article, I found nothing that would indicate that d'Souza was framed--say, by an FBI agent who induced the indicted to launder a 20k contribution.

Therefore, my conclusion is that you and/or Fox feel that it's okay for film directors and political pundits to break the law.

Eva

I never said , 'no other possibilities'.

Soros, like Koch, gives via institutions.

of course, it's totally irrelevant that either you, I or Steve feel thatthis law is unfair...

(Edited by Matthews on 1/30, 7:18pm)

A frame-up is 'possible', of course.

My 'conclusion' is that you seem to feel that it's okay to break laws which you deem to be unfair.

My conclusion, also, is that you and Steve are arguing obiter dictae:

* Souza was framed

* Even if Souza wasn't framed, he did nothing different than the Dems, which makes his  prosecution selectively unfair.

* Even if Souza did something different that what the Dems do, the law is unfair.

In other words, first, argue facts. If you have none, argue principle. If you have neither, get a jury.

EM

Steve,

What you're suggesting is that the drafting and implementation of the law --obviously having bipartisan support--somehow violates the constitution.

Kindly, therefore, indicate which article that might be, and how it was abused.

Also, of course, why the law wasn't challenged in the Supreme Court by disagrring groups.

The only 'pattern' that there really is re law enforcement is a pattern of negligence. To speak of a

'patterned' enforcement of clear violations seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Eva

If there's a double standard at work, it's not 'quite obvious'. Neither Soros (D) nor Koch (R) have been accused of violating the law under discussion.

Your doublespeak  involves refusing to admit that for every Soros there's a Koch.

Your doublespeak also involves a willing disregard for the distinction 'legal' and illegal'.

Eva,

I take it that you do not see any significant patterns of selective enforcement, say under Nixon, or under Obama, or that there have been any increases in violations of the constitution (not just from an administration, but also from a legislature passing laws that violate the constitution, or from 5-4 rulings of the Supreme Court that fly in the face of the constitution).

You don't see this nation as marching away from the constitution? Or, do you see the increases in the size and power of the government as such a desireable end, that it must somehow be constitutional? Or that the constitution isn't something that we should be trying to follow in any strict fashion? You don't see D'Souza as selective enforcement... what about the spying on the right wing press? What about the search of the Fox New's senior reporter's home and his parents' home? What about the use of the IRS against the Tea Party? Are all of these non-starters for you?

The bigger picture is the only one worth keeping your eye on. The rest are deck chairs on the Titanic. Liberty is disappearing in ever greater chunks. Totalitarianism is winning over what was a constitutional republic. This pattern goes back generations, but in this administration the rate of change is too strong to miss.  Here are some quotes from a column by the civil libertarian like Nat Hentoff who has explained why Obama is impeachable.  

From a Hentoff column:

• 2011, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which, for the first time in our history, permitted the military to arrest and detain U.S. citizens indefinitely -- including in this country -- for allegedly being "associated" with terrorists, without evidence presented before an American court.
• He used the state secrets privilege to close off our system of justice more often than Bush ever did.
• March 2012, "the White House released an executive order, 'National Defense Resources Preparedness.' The document is stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It states that, in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction."

Eva,

If you were to design a government and you wanted to limit the abuses government is capable of, would you use a constitution?  If so, in general terms, how would it be different from what we have now?  If you wouldn't use a constitution, what mechanism would you use in an attempt to limit government abuses?