Faking Congressional Control to Fool the Public

I like Judge Napolitano but sometimes he writes things in reverse ( an amusing habit of his. Go read a few of his columns and you will see what I mean.) . Here is what he wrote. Please read it.

But here is the order that I wish he had written some paragraphs:

In our post 9/11 world, the government has gotten away with hiding its worst behavior behind a veil of secrecy, publicly justified by the fears of a loss of safety that it has instilled in the public. That is not condoned by the Constitution. Under the Constitution, a free people are always entitled to know what the government is doing, and we are entitled to a government that obeys the laws it enforces against the rest of us so we can replace the government when it fails to protect our freedoms.

In a democracy, the government must be accountable to the people it serves. Secrecy and accountability are enemies. The natural right to know what the government is doing means that secrecy must be severely and aggressively minimized. A Congress that rubber-stamps what secret agents want it to do by a secret procedure is a dangerous mix that will impair personal liberty in a free society.

The power of these (intelligence) committees effectively has established them as mini-Congresses that are unrecognized by the Constitution and are well outside its confines. The Constitution provides that “all legislative powers” are granted to Congress, not to a select few in Congress, but to Congress as a whole.

These are the same committees that have given permission to the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on all Americans all the time, so we are probably justified in concluding that the committees and the intelligence agencies they supposedly regulate are more attuned to governmental power than to personal liberty.

Over the years, as sometimes happens between regulators (the congressional committees) and the entity to be regulated (the CIA), they developed a chummy relationship. In this case, the relationship has been so chummy that at the behest of Presidents Bush and Obama the CIA has gone to the Senate and House Intelligence committees, instead of going to the full Congress, for permission to torture prisoners, kill Americans with drones and fight small-scale wars — all well beyond the statutory mission of stealing secrets.

When the CIA was established in 1947, Congress and President Truman were concerned that it might not confine itself to spying. Its sole statutory purpose was to steal secrets from foreign governments so that the U.S. would know what they were planning and could prepare for any behavior adverse to American government interests. By its nature, it was operating in secret, and because it lacked transparency, it lacked accountability. One of the statutory mechanisms to achieve accountability was to require the CIA to report to two committees of Congress, but in secret.

The government is caught up in another scandal in which federal agents have been accused of hacking into one another’s computers.

This is more than a schoolyard brawl. This is the unbridled and likely unlawful use of government computers and classified materials by CIA employees trying to dampen the enthusiasm of their regulators, or by Senate investigators accessing classified materials to which they may not be entitled. Either way, this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of warrantless searches and seizures. Any other persons who did this would be indicted for hacking. Because all of this is so secret, we don’t know whether the Department of Justice is looking into who broke what laws.

But we do know that like its cousin the NSA, the CIA often acts above the law. It does so knowing that indictments for torturing, destroying evidence or computer hacking are unlikely, as any trial would expose the depths of this skullduggery, the unconstitutional system of mini-Congresses and the secrets these employees are trying to keep from their employers — the American people.

It is obvious to me that the ruse is to create the appearance of oversight while actually rubber stamping the programs that take away our liberties and rights. Who will change the American government and align it with the Constitution again?

What is the word I am thinking of?

When a person misdirects a third party to accrete blame to the second party, what is the word for that? More than ‘mislead’, I think.

I use the word “misdirection” to mean when one party misdirects a second party on purpose. I use the phrase “false flag” when a perpetrator (party one) seeks to misdirect  party two to blame a third party. (They intentionally deceive a player into believing that some one else was responsible for an act)

Somewhere between there is a word that describes a lie told by party one with the intent of deceiving a third party at the expense of party two.

Here is what 7th district Rep. Sean Duffy sent me today:

“Last Wednesday afternoon, we passed H.R. 444, the Require a Plan Act . The legislation requires the President to finally spell out how he intends to balance the budget. Simply put, no American family can make do without a detailed budget for how to spend their money and the United States Government should be no different. We’re more than $16 trillion in debt and every year we spend $1 trillion more than we take in yet the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in nearly four years and the President has once again missed the deadline for presenting a budget. If we have to keep passing legislation to bring attention to these critical fiscal issues, then we’ll gladly do so. I remain committed to restoring stability to our country’s long-term future, and step one in that process is passing a balanced budget.”

In this instance, Rep. Duffy implies that 1. The President is responsible for balancing the budget, 2. That he has not done so, 3. The President missed some sort of legislative deadline to present one, and 4. That he, Rep. Duffy, is committed to the process of a balanced budget.

For those who may not recall, all spending originates in the House of Representatives, that explains items 1 and 2. If Congressmen Duffy seeks a balanced budget, perhaps he should convince other Representatives to pass a spending bill equal to the projected revenue and let the President figure out how to live within the means provided. That was the intent of the Constitution.

Because the President is not required to propose a balanced budget, there can be no legislative deadline. That takes care of item three.

And to discard the fourth item (about Rep. Duffy is committed to a balanced budget) we simply look at Rep. Duffy’s false statements that the President is responsible, that he has not done so, and is late in doing so. Clearly a Representative who misleads his constituents is not committed to a balanced budget process.

The only truth in the statement Rep. Duffy made is that the Senate has failed to pass any budget. A more despicable Senate action has not occurred in my memory and Sen. Reid deserves full opprobrium for this lack of honor and integrity to fulfill his role as leader of the Senate.

I am inclined to call Rep. Duffy’s email to me “Propaganda :the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.”

Does Representative Duffy deny that he has engaged in “Propaganda”?

I think I will ask him.