Menendez Prosecution Endangers #Democracy ! @NewsMax

Friday, 10 Apr 2015 11:42 AM

By Alan Dershowitz

Whenever a prominent political figure is indicted on charges of alleged corruption, serious questions arise. Is the prosecution part of a growing and dangerous trend toward criminalizing policy differences? Does it endanger the free speech rights of contributors? Will it constrain the legislative branch from serving as a check and balance on the executive? 

These questions now are being raised in the context of the prosecution of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, as they previously were in several other ill-advised prosecutions including those of former agriculture secretary Mike Espy, former presidential candidate John Edwards, the late Sen. Ted Stevens, former Congressman Tom Delay, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

The reason these questions arise is not because there is no corruption in government. It is because the laws distinguishing between constitutionally protected political activities and illegal payments to office holders are vague and indeterminate. These laws give prosecutors enormous discretion to determine whether to prosecute questionable transactions. And the courts refuse to second guess prosecutorial decisions even in cases where selective prosecution based on improper considerations seems evident. 

Editor's Note: Are You Sleep Deprived? Free Survey Will Identify Your Sleep Score.

It is absolutely essential, therefore, that prosecutors take responsibility for assuring that every prosecution of a public figure — most especially of public figures who are in disagreements with the executive branch — is based on hard, incontrovertible evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the elected official deliberately, willfully, and knowingly crossed the line from constitutionally protected activity to felonious criminality. 

http://goo.gl/2IYUVI

Please RT - THANKS!

Comments?

Hate Speech #Laws Have No Place in #Free Society

I remain convinced that the liberal concept of “hate speech” is the most ominous threat to our First Amendment rights. Never was this challenge to liberty more obvious than in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. Liberals in the media, always on the lookout for a way to use a tragedy to their advantage, immediately launched an attack on their conservative counterparts.

In Time Magazine, senior writer Richard Lacayo said “the inflamed rhetoric of the 90s is suddenly an unindicted co-conspirator in the blast.

Over at CBS, Bob Schieffer asked Leon Panetta whether anti-government rhetoric on talk radio was to blame for the devastating attack. “Do you think that somehow has led these people to commit this act? Do they feed on that kind of rhetoric?”

On NBC, Bryant Gumbel said that Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, and other right-wing personalities “may embolden and encourage some extremists.”

I use the Oklahoma City bombing backlash as an entry point because it’s tempting to view France’s crackdown on those who defended terrorism as a good thing. It was reported that French authorities had arrested 54 people for defending the actions of the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Prosecutors were ordered Wednesday to crack down on speech that glorified terrorism and expressed anti-Semitism. In other words, they’re looking to clean their country of so-called “hate speech.”

- See more at: http://www.leanrightamerica.org/uncategorized/hate-speech-laws-have-no-place-in-free-society/#sthash.x6Knsqf0.dpuf

#PJNET #TCOT Obama immigration action ‘slap in the face,’ top GOP

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 19, 2014 The top House Republicans who oversee immigration policy called President Obama’s expected action this week to grant temporary amnesty to illegal immigrants a “slap in the face to the American people and the Constitution” in a letter sent Wednesday. Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte and Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul sent the president the letter to register their objections and pleading with him to work with them instead on legislation.

Obama policy to use military against citizens

Pentagon directive outlines presidential authority

Americans concerned over the buildup of military-style units within non-security-related federal agencies – specifically Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams – are having those concerns confirmed.

A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities reveals what critics say is a policy that outlines the potential use of military force against Americans by the Obama administration, reports the Washington Times.

While the document – signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn – contains standard provisions on support to civilian emergency services, special events and domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers, it also outlines presidential authority for use of military weapons and personnel against Americans during times of domestic unrest.

“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” a defense official opposed to the directive told the Times.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/revealed-obama-policy-to-use-military-against-citizens/#7LBS4z1QWOSEZPZp.99

http://goo.gl/yECfLs

TweetMe Please

Photo fold3.com

OBAMA IS NOT FINISHED

By: David Limbaugh
6/27/2014 08:35 AM

More and more people are finally coming to the realization that President Obama is presiding over America’s decline, though there are differences of opinion as to whether he’s deliberately or even directly causing it.

You have to admit that it’s outright bizarre and alarming that people are even having this discussion, yet many of us have been warning about it for years now. It is gratifying that others — albeit belatedly — are waking up.

There are two separate issues: Is Obama trying to bring America down, and is his presidency falling apart (and what does that mean)?

http://goo.gl/XDMAED

TweetMe Please

Obama expands government benefits for gay couples

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A year after the Supreme Court struck down a law barring federal recognition of gay marriages, the Obama administration granted an array of new benefits Friday to same-sex couples, including those who live in states where gay marriage is against the law.

The new measures range from Social Security and veterans benefits to work leave for caring for sick spouses. They are part of President Barack Obama's efforts to expand whatever protections he can offer to gays and lesbians even though more than half of the states don't recognize gay marriage. That effort has been confounded by laws that say some benefits should be conferred only to couples whose marriages are recognized by the states where they live, rather than the states where they were married.

Aiming to circumvent that issue, the Veterans Affairs Department will start letting gay people who tell the government they are married to a veteran to be buried alongside them in a national cemetery, drawing on the VA's authority to waive the usual marriage requirement.

http://goo.gl/VMWQEX

TweetMe Please