Most people remember this chilling quite from former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she said about Obamacare, “We must first vote on the bill before we can find out what is in it.” Unfortunately for Americans now, at a time when militarized police are being scrutinized for brutal and aggressive acts against blacks and other citizens, a new interview with some members of the House of Representatives on Dec. 5 prove that very few Congressmen actually read the legislation they sign off on, and in particular, some have never read the entirety of the newest NDAA bill to pass the House.
“US House members admitted they had not read the entire $585 billion, 1,648-page National Defense Authorization Act, which predominantly specifies budgeting for the Defense Department, before it was voted on Thursday in Congress”.
“Of course not. Are you kidding?” Rep. Jim Moran (D-Virginia) said when asked by CNSNews if he had perused the entire bill, which was just posted online late Tuesday night before it was ultimately passed in by the House by a vote of 300-119 about 36 hours later.
Moran said he did not plan to read the entire bill before voting because “I trust the leadership.”
Most legislation these days are not written by Congressmen, or even members of their staff, but instead are submitted in part or in its entirety by corporations and lobbyists who push legislators into promoting and voting for bills that benefit their companies far more than the American people.
When Americans elect a politician to office they believe they are sending someone from their district or state to represent them, and protect their interests above all. But as the truth is sadly revealed, and people come to understand that the government is now an oligarchical and fascist entity, our rights and desires no longer count, and politicians no longer have to do their jobs because lobbyists and corporations are more than happy to do it for them.
Via Secrets of the Fed
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. It’s being branded by proponents as an attempt at transparency, but critics of a new law say the United States government just got the green-light to use propaganda made for foreign audiences on the American public.
A longstanding federal law made it illegal for the US Department of State to share domestically the internally-authored news stories sent to American-operated outlets broadcasting around the globe. All of that changed effective July 2, when the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was given permission to let US households tune-in to hear the type of programming that has previously only been allowed in outside nations.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, The Act has ensured for decades that government-made media intended for foreign audiences doesn’t end up on radio networks broadcast within the US. An amendment tagged onto the National Defense Authorization Act removed that prohibition this year, however, and as of earlier this month those news stories meant for nations abroad can now be heard easily by American ears.
When Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) introduced their changes last year, they said their bill would modify “a Cold War-era law that hampers diplomatic, defense and other agencies’ ability to communicate in the twenty-first century. “Effective strategic communication and public diplomacy should be front-and-center as we work to roll back al-Qaeda’s and other violent extremists’ influence among disaffected populations,” Rep. Smith wrote in May 2012 in support of his bill.
But a Buzzfeed article published days later by late journalist Michael Hastings opened a can of worms on Smith and Thornberry, and the lawmakers were forced to quickly diffuse critics who said their bill made it so that the government could effectuate propaganda on its own public.
If anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously.
Remember Indefinite Detention? Now There’s Indefinite Surveillance in the NDAA: 2014
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives voted on the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (NDAA), which includes a provision to indefinitely detain United States citizens without charge or a fair trial.When the House voted on 2012’s NDAA in December of 2011, it unanimously passed and President Obama signed the bill into law on the second of January.
As if the looming possibility of being indefinitely detained without charge or trial isn’t enough of a violation of civil liberties, now the 2014 NDAA is looking like it’ll focus much on surveillance gathering thanks to the Patriot Act and FISA.
Last month, the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities gathered to examine the fiscal year 2014 NDAA. Section 1061, which is known as the Enhancement of Capacity of the United States Government to Analyze Captured Records, was one of the focused topics during the meeting. It would act as a provision to the NDAA to develop a brand-new intelligence body, which would be able to scrutinize data collected through the Patriot Act, FISA, and other spying programs like the infamous PRISM, which was involved in a scandal that many now believe was a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Original Story Here
The U.S. House of Representatives voted again Thursday to allow the indefinite military detention of Americans, blocking an amendment that would have barred the possibility.
Congress wrote that authority into law in the National Defense Authorization Act two years ago, prompting outrage from civil libertarians on the left and right.
Supporters of detention argue that the nation needs to be able to arrest and jail suspected terrorists without trial, including Americans on U.S. soil, for as long as there is a war on terror. Their argument won, and the measure was defeated by a vote of 200 to 226. opponents, among them the Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who offered the amendment to end that authority, argued that such detention is a stain on the Constitution that unnecessarily militarizes U.S. law enforcement.
“It is a dangerous step toward executive and military power to allow things like indefinite detention under military control within the U.S.,” Smith said. “That’s the heart and essence of this issue.”
Original Article Here
First, the government responds to the September 11th attack by passing the Patriot Act, which is purportedly designed to protect us from foreign terrorists. Most of America cheers it on, never realizing that within the act is a broad definition for something categorized as domestic terrorism, or “activities that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”
Second, they pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows them, under the definitions for domestic terrorism set forth by the Patriot Act, to detain someone without trial and forever if they appear to be subverting the newly established status quo.
Third, they declare all federal property, or property being used for political events where Secret Service protection is present, as “events of national significance” through the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act. Undesirable demonstrators operating counter to the official narrative in these areas are herded into court approved free speech zones.
Finally, once the new laws are in place, the government security apparatus begins the re-education of its minions by labeling as “terrorists” anyone who dares speak out or disagrees with their new policy initiatives.
This last step is and has been happening for some time.
Even the very act of assembling with other like minded people to influence policy by petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances can land you on the domestic terrorism list.
More At: Red ice Creations