Monday, May 27, 2013

Orlando Cop Tries to Intimidate Man from Photographing Emergency Scene

How does Eric Holder survive?

New York Post ^ | 05/26/2013 | By MICHAEL A. WALSH 

If you want to see the true face of the Obama administration, you need look no further than the president’s embattled attorney general, Eric Holder.
By turns whiny, shifty, obfuscatory, petulant, insulting and arrogant, Holder has become a fixture before congressional investigating committees, fending off one Obama scandal after another, while proclaiming that he — the nation’s top cop — doesn’t know anything about anything and highly resents any implication that he does.
Indeed, all the Obama scandals — the murderous gunrunning scheme called Fast and Furious, the secret monitoring of the Associated Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen (personally approved by Holder), even the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups for special scrutiny — find their nexus at the top of the Justice Department.
Numerous Republican congressmen have called for his resignation, and now some on the left have as well. Liberal Web site the Huffington Post finally lost it over the Rosen affair Friday, and listed some of his other sins in its call for his head: “Easy on banks, tough on peace activists . . . soft on mortgage settlement, sanctioned drones . . .”
So if everybody hates Eric, what’s holding him up? Normally, inconvenient officials are blithely given the heave-ho, and there’s still ample room under the Obama bus for another body or four. It’s also customary for cabinet officials to depart after the first term (see: Clinton, Hillary) as part of a general reshuffling. But not Holder.
The reason is simple: Holder is the id to the president’s massive ego, busily helping to bring about the president’s wish for “fundamental transformation” of America from his post at Justice. Along with super-ego Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s chief consigliere and all-around Madame Defarge, he’s likely to be among the last to go.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Veterans and the 2012 vote

by James S. Robbins

Texas Passes 'Merry Christmas' Bill to Protect Holidays from Political Correctness

Breibart ^ | 05.25.13 | Dr. Susan Berry

State lawmakers in Texas have passed legislation that permits public schools to display nativity scenes, menorahs, or Christmas trees, and allows students and school district staff to use greetings such as, “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Hanukkah,” and “Happy Holidays.”
According to Fox News in Austin, the legislation (HB 308), introduced by Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R-Houston) and dubbed “The Merry Christmas Bill,” received overwhelming approval in the state house, by a margin of 145-2, and was passed unanimously in the state senate, 29-0. The bill will now be sent to Gov. Rick Perry (R) for his signature.
“I was a little flabbergasted and a little upset that we’ve become so politically correct that we can’t call a federal holiday by its name,” Bohac said. “Teachers have enough on their plate to worry about the school districts going to be sued or if they can call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree.”
Bohac said there are two pending lawsuits in Texas related to the use of traditional holiday greetings in schools. “Tales from Christmas Past” provides stories, posted on the bill’s website, submitted by citizens who write of oppression and threats of firings against teachers if they say, “Merry Christmas,” to students or exchange cards or gifts at school.
However, Linda Bridges, president of the Texas branch of the American Federation of Teachers, which opposed the bill, questioned the importance of the legislation.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ruling Against ‘Sheriff Joe’ Pushes U.S. Closer to Brink


Screen Shot 2013-05-26 at 1.37.48 PM
The Left has always been destructive, of itself and the communities around it. Drugs, abortion, homosexuality, welfare state … if it takes the human being a notch closer to the animals, the Left is all for it.Forgive them, Lord; they know not what they do.
One other thing the Left is good at, though, is an irritating talent for the most mind-bending rationalizations of its abberant behavior, rationalizations that have become institutionalized.
A prime example is the concept of racial profiling, which a court on Friday ruled Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and deputies had committed by virtue of checking the citizenship of Latinos with whom they came in contact.
To the Left, this is a great sin and proof that Arpaio is a scoundrel. As the “objective” Associated Press put it, “The ruling marks a thorough repudiation of the immigration patrols that made Arpaio a national political figure, and it represents a victory for those who pushed the lawsuit.”
Go team.
Arpaio and his deputies, of course, are simply enforcing federal laws against illegal immigration, laws which the current Administration has essentially ignored. It also must be recalled that Arpaio tried to work with the feds on stopping the scourge of criminals coming over the border into Arizona, and he got sued for his trouble.
In other words, the Left set up a situation where Arpaio could only choose between ignoring the problem and letting criminals run roughshod over the people under his protection or doing the right thing.
Sheriff Joe chose to do the right thing.
Based on what is known about Arpaio, it is to be hoped that his response to the court will be the same as that to the feds, that he was elected to the job and he intends to fulfill his oath.
Other sheriffs are finding themselves at odds with the federal government as well. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is holding its convention this month, at which members will discuss ways they can protect their communities from federal overreach and defend citizens’ constitutional rights.
“We are going to train and vet them all, state by state, to understand and enforce the constitutionally protected rights of the people they serve, with an emphasis on state sovereignty and local autonomy,î said Executive Director Sheriff Richard Mack. “Then these local governments will issue our new Declaration to the Federal Government regarding the abuses that we will no longer tolerate or accept. Said declaration will be enforced by our Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers. In short, the CSPOA will be the army to set our nation free.”
Note that last sentence.
From the beginning, the Obama Administration has been casting conservatives as the enemy of the state. By its persistence in this message, all the while circumventing the Constitution at every point, its arrogance has slowly created the enemy it has sought all along — a trained, armed force opposed to its agenda.
Some liberals have labeled the CSPOA “insurrectionists” and “traitors.” (Natural Tories, always running to defend the King.)
It’s just that sort of liberal arrogance that has pushed this country down the road to the point where not just a small clique of anti-federalists but the mass of gun owners and large numbers of sworn peace officers are ready to fight their own federal government.
A recent poll found almost a quarter of all Americans agree that violence may be needed in the near future to restore liberty. Even 18 percent of liberals in the survey agreed.
There is a group led by a guy named Adam Kokesh that is trying to organize an armed march on Washington, D.C., on July 4 in protest of federal efforts to restrict the Second Amendment. Many people have expressed concern over the true motives of the organizers, but the project seems to be moving forward. Plans are for gun owners to walk the streets leading to the Capitol, near the White House and other important locations while carrying their weapons.
Kokesh was recently arrested, but other organizers have vowed to move forward.
There are not enough fingers on your hands to count the ways this event could go wrong.
Whose oath of office is “more legal”? The president’s or the local sheriff’s? They’re both constitutionally sworn officers, both equally authorized and capable of determining what that oath means.
And yet, there’s a serious conflict brewing in this country, one that increasingly seems it may end up being settled by bloodshed.
Before that happens, and because such a fight might not go the way liberals hope, the Left might consider listening to what its fellow Americans are saying. Instead of telling conservatives to shut up, the Left should trying shutting its own mouth and opening its ears before we all live to regret it.

Read more:

Governor Palin: ‘Happy Memorial Day. We Will Never Forget’ ^ | 26 May 2013 | Sarah Palin/Steve Fischer 

Governor Palin just posted the following on Facebook:

With grateful hearts Americans recognize how sweet it is to live in a country where men and women offer to serve something greater than self. They choose to support and defend the Constitution to preserve our rich heritage, they deny themselves comfort to secure our well-being, and they sacrifice their personal freedom daily that we may enjoy liberty in perpetuity. “Thank you” cannot do justice to the gratitude we feel for our nation’s finest.
This year, more than ones prior, I am especially mindful of those who have served and those who gave their all. Contemplating the September 11th terrorist attack in Benghazi, our government’s targeting of conservative patriots, snooping into reporters’ personal communications records, the usurping of Second Amendment rights – how can one not notice the disregard for our Constitution? Our military men and women risk their lives to uphold our rights. They deserve better than to have their sacrifice trampled on by people who pretend to have heard nothing, seen nothing, and therefore can say nothing about abusing their power over We the People. Americans deserve better. Certainly our military veterans’ honor deserves better. (By the way, pleading the Fifth while showing no regard for the First is as bold an exercise in adding insult to injury as I have ever seen.)
It is time to declare, “Enough is enough.” It’s time to halt the fundamental transformation of the country our soldiers have given all to preserve. Traditionally Memorial Day is the unofficial start of summer, replete with family outings, barbecues, and parades. As much as we enjoy these wholesome American pastimes, this observance represents so much more. For the love of all who have ever worn the uniform, as a memorial to the service rendered, and in the spirit of those who paid the price we can never repay, may we mark this day by committing ourselves to the fundamental restoration of the greatest country on the face of the earth. Happy Memorial Day. We will never forget.
- Sarah Palin

(Photo Courtesy of AP, Gov. Palin in Indianapolis 05-26-13)

After Holder lied under oath, instead of firing him, Obama asked him to investigate himself!

wordpress ^ | May 25, 2013 | Dan from Squirrel Hill
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath. He said that he had nothing to do with monitoring the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen. But it turns out that it was Holder’s own signature on the search warrant.
Even the liberal Huffington Post is saying that Holder should resign or be fired.
Holder could get five years in prison.
So, did President Obama fire Holder?
Of course not!
Instead, Obama asked that Holder be investigated – not by an independent investigating committee – but by Holder himself!
I can see it now…
Obama: “Did you lie?”
Holder: “No.”
Obama: “OK. That’s good enough for me. You’re cleared of any wrongdoing.”

It's all a crock... of Barack

 photo oFishing13.jpg

obama what is it you do around here couch liar
obama hang curtains holder press intimidation investigation scandal  

My Name is Bosch and I’m a Recovered Muslim

FrontPage Mag ^ | May 27, 2013 | Bosch Fawstin 

Author’s note: This was originally published in Dec. 2011 in Front Page Magazine and it was the most popular piece I’ve written until this piece of mine. I’m a cartoonist, so the only essays I write are ones that I cannot express in any other way but words, and here- in light of the latest Jihad attack in London, and the latest “Islam vs “Islamism”” debate going on- is what I think is my most comprehensive piece on Islam, Muslims & Jihad.

My name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.
But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.
So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.
Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.
Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.
The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.
In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.
In the name of distinguishing the enemy from Muslims who mean us no harm, far too many Western commentators have avoided using the name “Islam” for the enemy’s ideology, and instead have decided to create their very own terms for the threat we’re facing, terms that are alien to the enemy. Terms such as:
Islamic Fundamentalism.
Islamic Extremism.
Totalitarian Islam.
Political Islam.
Bin Ladenism.
Radical Islam.
Militant Islam.
We didn’t use terms such as “Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism” in the past. “Militant Islam”, Political Islam”, etc., are redundant terms. Our pretending otherwise has proven disastrous. Thousands of American lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed because of policies predicated on the myth that “Islam means peace.” We didn’t try to reform Shinto or Nazism during World War II; the major changes in those cultures took place only after we thoroughly de-militarized them.
And it’s no accident that Western analysts of Islam who are most informed about Islam are also most critical of it, while those least informed are least critical. But then there are those who, in their study of Islam, have become so enamored with their subject that, instead of sticking to what Islam is, they often write about what it isn’t, what they hope it might be. They seem preoccupied with doing their part to save Islam from those who have allegedly corrupted it.
The Muslim world is where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice. Islam – not any alleged deviant form of it – means misogyny, censorship, anti-Semitism, homophobia, wife-beatings, beheadings, honor killings, pedophilia/“child marriages”, murdering infidels, etc. This is evil, and Islam sanctions every bit of it, but we’ve been told that we must respect “one of the world’s great religions” because it’s a religion. Following 9/11, the only thing George W. Bush knew about Islam was that it was a religion, and that apparently was a good enough reason for him to exonerate it as he did. And his advisor on Islam, David Forte, told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear, that “Nothing this evil could come from religion.” But 9/11 did come from a religion. Whatever else 9/11 was, it was an act of faith.
And Bush saying “Islam is peace” shortly after 9/11 gave the enemy a gift they couldn’t have foreseen. Here was the one man who was charged to defend America from their attack and here he was defending the very ideology that motivated the attackers. Honesty is the best policy in general, and when it comes to war, it’s a moral imperative to find out the truth, to tell the truth and to act on the truth, no matter what sacred cow is killed in the process. And so a big part of why nearly 3,000 victims of jihad on 9/11 haven’t been avenged is because of respect for religion, even for a religion that calls for our destruction.
Muslims who really care about Islam are part of an organized effort to spread Islam, and I sometimes refer to this collective effort by Muslims as “Organized Islam.” No matter the means involved, Muslims working towards a more Islamic world want the same thing the jihadists want. This organized effort includes Mosques, Muslim organizations, Muslim individuals writing books, blog posts, etc. And they all invariably engage in anti-Western, Anti-Israeli propaganda, at the very least.
I often hear that we should be working with the Muslim world. Working towards what? As Ayn Rand writes, “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” Any time we spend “working” with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction, consciously or not.
While it’s true that jihadists don’t represent most Muslims, they do represent Islam. But then why don’t most Muslims engage in jihad? Like in any culture, heroes are a small minority, and that goes for Islamic culture as well. The jihadists are Islam’s heroes; they are the ones most dedicated to following Allah’s commands and they’re celebrated in the Muslim world for it. They are also the only ones to whom Islam guarantees paradise. And their rarity was made even clearer when we learned that only the pilots of 9/11 knew it was a suicide mission. Our enemy knows that it’s tough to get even hardcore Muslims to sacrifice their lives for Islam, but they don’t want us to know that. Just as they don’t want us to know that behind their boast that they love death is the fact that they hate life.
And while Muslims who blow themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims are a small minority, Muslims who would explicitly condemn them are an even smaller minority. And while I think that Muslims are mere sheep to their Jihadist wolves, there are also too many Muslim cheerleaders for jihad. How many Muslims celebrated 9/11? Far too many. Even in my own lax Muslim upbringing in America, there was an omnipresent anti-Semitism and misogyny. Some members of my family admired Adolph Hitler, who I refer to as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel.” Regarding misogyny, the birth of a girl became a day of mourning for Muslim women in my family; they understood the suffering this girl would endure under Islam, even in America.
Though we say we’ve been at war for over ten years, we haven’t even begun to fight the war the way we should be fighting it. And those calling for a change within Islam during this war would be surprised at how much Islam can be changed through an honest war on our behalf. You can’t make a violent religion like Islam non-violent by argument, only by greater retaliatory force against state sponsors of jihad terrorism.
The future of Islam and the well-being of Muslims is said to be of importance to us. Post – 9/11, the defense of our culture, our values, our very lives has been optional, but our defense of Islam has been absolute. It began with Bush’s “Islam is peace” and it continues with Obama, who said in his Submission Speech in Egypt in 2009, in front of members of The Muslim Brotherhood, “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” If only he felt the same about America.
We can’t be both for Islam and for ourselves. This enemy is fully on their own side and fully against us and they’ve made themselves believe that they’re the good guys and that we’re the bad guys, and our actions have done nothing but turn their hatred of us into an ever-deepening contempt. Before we see the enemy for what it is, we need to see ourselves for what we are. Only then can we, with full moral conviction, make them pay for what they’ve done and move us towards victory.
Our problem is not “Islamophobia”, but Islamophilia. It is this uncritical, uninformed, absolute defense of Islam by Western elites after 9/11 that I refer to as Islamgate. It’s a scandal for the ages that few involved would ever admit to being part of.
I care about the truth. I care about Western Civilization. I care about myself, my loved ones and my friends. I care about Iife. And that’s why I don’t care about Islam.
Our altruistic concern for the future and well being of the Muslim world has come at the expense of American lives and treasure. We’ve placed the well being of “The Muslim World” above our own self-defense. We’ve placed today’s Big Lie, “Islam means peace”, above the truth we need to act on. We’ve placed the lives of Muslim civilians above the lives of our soldiers, placing them in absolutely unnecessary danger in order to protect innocent (or even guilty) civilians. Our Rules of Engagement might as well be renamed the Golden Rules of Engagement, as our soldiers have been forced to treat the enemy the way we’d like to be treated. And the enemy takes full advantage of that, as they do of all of the policies our morally vain politicians have concocted. We need to shift the focus onto our own well-being at the enemy’s expense for a change.
We’ve tried everything since 9/11 except real war. War is the answer to Jihad.
So who cares about Islam? Muslims, Jihadists, Islamophiles, Leftists who naturally side with anti-American ideologies, guilt-ridden fellow travelers who think America is usually in the wrong, and religionists who believe any religion is better than none. But since Leftists and Islamophiles usually know very little about Islam, who truly cares about Islam? Those who are at war with us.
In the end, I care about Islam and the Muslim world as much as the Muslim world cares about America and the West. This is war. We can’t be on both sides. I’m not rooting for Islam or the Muslim world.

I’m rooting for us.

Washington Bridge Collapses Despite Stimulus

USBC News ^ | 13,05,26 | USBC News Wire 

...It is unclear why the bridge was allowed to fall in a state of repair which allowed a catastrophic collapse, since the Obama administration pushed through a $787 billion economic stimulus package as one of his first acts. The stimulus was criticized by many for failing to address the underlying problems with the economy at the time, and many feared the money would have been better spent in the private sector.
Titled, the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” Obama touted the virtue of the act, as a way of providing “shovel ready” jobs to Americans, who were struggling during an economic downturn. Many are pointing to the bridge collapse as an example of mismanagement and inefficiency of the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus package...

Don't panic, the signs are still standing

Image Hosted by

tax payers are still picking up the tab for public transportation

Image Hosted by

rain gardens are still being built

Image Hosted by

Bike paths are still being paved

Image Hosted by

High speed rail is still chuggin along

Image Hosted by

Obama Uses 1917 Espionage Act to Go After Reporters ^ | May 27, 2013 | Michael Barone 

There is one problem with the entirely justified if self-interested media squawking about the Justice Department snooping into the phone records of multiple Associated Press reporters and Fox News's James Rosen.
The problem is that what the AP reporters and Rosen did arguably violates the letter of the law.
The search warrant in the Rosen case cites Section 793(d) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
Section 793(d) says that a person lawfully in possession of information that the government has classified as secret who turns it over to someone not lawfully entitled to posses it has committed a crime. That might cover Rosen's source.
Section 793(g) is a conspiracy count that says that anyone who conspires to help the source do that has committed the same crime. That would be the reporter.
It sounds like this law criminalizes a lot of journalism. You might wonder how such a law ever got passed and why, for the last 90 years, it has very seldom produced prosecutions and investigations of journalists.
The answer: This is the Espionage Act of 1917, passed two months after the United States entered World War I. In his 1998 book "Secrecy," the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan tells the story of how it came into being.
Congress was responding to incidents of German espionage before the declaration of war. In July 1916, German agents blew up the Black Tom munitions dump in New York Harbor. The explosion was loud enough to be heard in Connecticut and Maryland.
The Espionage Act was passed with bipartisan support in a Democratic Congress and strongly supported by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson wanted even more. "Authority to exercise censorship over the press," he wrote a senator, "is absolutely necessary." He got that authority in May 1918 when Congress passed the Sedition Act, criminalizing, among other things, "abusive language" about the government.
Wilson's Justice Department successfully prosecuted Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate who received 900,000 votes for president in 1912, for making statements opposing the war.
The Wilson administration barred socialist newspapers from the mails, jailed a filmmaker for making a movie about the Revolutionary War (don't rile our British allies) and prosecuted a minister who claimed Jesus was a pacifist.
German language books were removed from libraries, German language newspapers forced out of business, and one state banned speaking German outdoors.
It was an ugly period in our history. It's also a reminder that big government liberals can be as much inclined to suppress civil liberties as small government conservatives -- or more so.
Fortunately things changed after Wilson left office. A Republican Congress allowed the Sedition Act to expire in 1921.
Debs, who received 915,000 votes for president in 1920 while in Atlanta federal prison, was pardoned by Republican President Warren Harding (a former journalist) and invited to the White House.
The Espionage Act of 1917 remained on the books and was amended to cover news media. But it was used sparingly.
Franklin Roosevelt, who served in the Wilson administration, didn't use it in World War II. When his attorney general urged him to prosecute the Chicago Tribune for a story three days before Pearl Harbor detailing military plans for a possible world war, he brushed the recommendation aside.
That despite the fact that New Deal Democrats were as paranoid about the Republican and isolationist Tribune as conservatives have been in recent times about The New York Times.
Roosevelt did order the internment of West Coast Japanese-Americans in 1942. But an act apologizing for that and providing restitution was passed with bipartisan majorities and signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988.
Presidents and attorney generals of both parties have been reluctant to use the Espionage Act when secret information has been leaked to the press because they have recognized that it is overbroad.
They have understood, as Moynihan argues in "Secrecy," that government classifies far too many things as secrets, even as it has often failed to protect information that truly needs to stay secret.
Barack Obama and his Justice Department seem to be of a different mind. They have used the Espionage Act of 1917 six times to bring cases against government officials for leaks to the media -- twice as many as all their predecessors combined.
"Gradually, over time," Moynihan writes, "American government became careful about liberties." Now, suddenly, it seems to be moving in the other direction.