Showing posts with label Nsa Surveillance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nsa Surveillance. Show all posts

Monday, July 22, 2013

Obama Administration and DHS Veiw Veterans as “suspected terrorist's”.

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have had their privacy rights violated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), who calls the targeted vets “suspected terrorist”.
What a nice way to thank those who fought tirelessly for our country… Good grief.
The Department of Homeland Security and FBI have been monitoring white supremacists and “militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups” for terrorist activities since 2009. Somehow, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have fallen into these closely-watched groups, on the grounds that they are possible terrorists.
This is all done through a program called “Operation Vigilant Eagle”. When the program began, it caused some controversy but was quickly forgotten and dropped by the mainstream media. Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary told NBC in an interview, “This is an assessment of things just to be wary of, not to infringe on constitutional rights, certainly not to malign our veterans.”
In February 2009 (shortly after Obama’s inauguration), a Vigilant Eagle memo was put out, saying the purpose of the program was to “share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat.”
Janet+Napolitano+Testifies+Before+Senate+Appropriations+Kr19x-As_0wl
Since President Obama stepped into office, the DHS has issued several reports about a “wave of terrorism” by Republicans  – these reports have targeted all levels of conservatives from off-duty cops to Tea Party members. Vigilant Eagle is merely an unjust expression of these partisan preferences within the DHS.
Brandon Raub, a Marine vet, was arrested last year by FBI and Secret Service agents. He was then held for a week at a psychiatric facility… All because the vet complained about the government in blogs and on Facebook.
Then I guess I should be taken away too — I’ve made blogging about the government my fulltime job!
One of Raub’s “questionable” posts read, “The United States was meant to lead the charge against injustice, but through our example not our force. People do not respond to having liberty and freedom forced on them.”
Wow, I really feel like I’m in imminent danger after reading that…
raub
Raub was finally released when a judge decided that the case against him was “devoid of any factual allegations.” Gee, really took a genius to figure that out. It is crystal clear that Raub’s arrest was Operation Vigilant Eagle’s attempt to stop him from criticizing the government.
Since his release, Raub has been contacted by numerous other veterans with similar stories.
The Obama Administration has managed to criminalize those in our society who should instead be honored as heros: our veterans. We cannot let this administration continue to steal freedom from our vets. Something must be done to stop this, and someone must be held accountable — are you listening, Janet Napolitano?

Nov 2009 interview where Obama compares Teabaggers as Homosexials

http://d22r54gnmuhwmk.cloudfront.net/photos/5/mr/rp/yrMRrPkZmIhdnQk-556x313-noPad.jpg
Oval Office interview with President Obama in
"I think it's fair to say that that helped to create the Teabaggers."
- President Barack Obama, November 30, 2009

THE BACKSTORY
How do you interview a President? We asked veteran political journalist and author, Jonathan Alter, on this unique art and get to hear rare outtakes from his Oval Office interview with President Obama in November 2009. Alter writes for Bloomberg now after spending nearly three decades at Newsweek magazine. He's interviewed every president since Nixon, except for Ronald Reagan, and we get to hear what comes out behind closed doors while on the record.

Obama Interview Notes
- Date: November 30, 2009
- The Scene: The Oval Office
- The Source: Digital recorder
- Interview was central to Jonathan Alter's book, The Promise: President Obama, Year One. Available from Amazon

Executive Producer: David Gerlach | Producer: Amy Drozdowska

Photo Credits

Bigstock
The National Archives
The White House Photostream via Flickr
World Economic Forum via Flickr
Tom Hodgkinson via Flickr
The Aspen Institute via Flickr
Chuck Simmins via Flickr
Fibonacci via Flickr
An unlisted youtube video only seen from direct link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpEOwasV6Xc#at=224

Thursday, July 18, 2013

There is no longer any doubt whatsoever that the US government is lawless

 http://dillsnapcogitation.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/patriot-act.gif?w=655
It has been public information for over a decade that the US government secretly, illegally, and unconstitutionally spies on its citizens. Congress and the federal courts have done nothing about this extreme violation of the US Constitution and statutory law, and the insouciant US public seems unperturbed.
In 2004 a whistleblower informed the New York Times that the National Security Agency (NSA) was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by ignoring the FISA court and spying on Americans without obtaining the necessary warrants. The corrupt New York Times put the interests of the US government ahead of those of the American public and sat on the story for one year until George W. Bush was safely reelected.
By the time the New York Times published the story of the illegal spying one year later, the law-breaking government had had time to mitigate the offense with ex post facto law or executive orders and explain away its law-breaking as being in the country’s interest.Last year William Binney, who was in charge of NSA’s global digital data gathering program revealed that NSA had everyone in the US under total surveillance. Every email, Internet site visited and phone call is captured and stored. In 2012 Binney received the Callaway Award for Civic Courage, an annual award given to those who champion constitutional rights at risk to their professional and personal lives.
There have been a number of whistleblowers. For example, in 2006 Mark Klein revealed that AT&T had a secret room in its San Francisco office that NSA used to collect Internet and phone-call data from US citizens who were under no suspicion.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html
The presstitute media handled these stories in ways that protected the government’s lawlessness from scrutiny and public outrage. The usual spin was that the public needs to be safe from terrorists, and safety is what the government is providing.
The latest whistle blower, Edward Snowden, has sought refuge in Hong Kong, which has a better record of protecting free speech than the US government. Snowden did not trust any US news source and took the story to the British newspaper, the Guardian.
There is no longer any doubt whatsoever that the US government is lawless, that it regards the US Constitution as a scrap of paper, that it does not believe Americans have any rights other than those that the government tolerates at any point in time, and that the government has no fear of being held accountable by the weak and castrated US Congress, the sycophantic federal courts, a controlled media, and an insouciant public.
Binney and Snowden have described in precisely accurate detail the extreme danger from the government’s surveillance of the population. No one is exempt, not the Director of the CIA, US Army Generals, Senators and Representatives, not even the president himself.
Anyone with access to a computer and the Internet can find interviews with Binney and Snowden and become acquainted with why you do have very much indeed to fear whether or not you are doing anything wrong.
James Clapper, the lying Director of National Intelligence, who would have been perfectly at home in the Hitler or Stalin regimes, condemned Snowden as “reprehensible” for insisting that in a democracy the public should know what the government is doing. Clapper insisted that secretly spying on every ordinary American was essential in order to “protect our nation.” http://news.antiwar.com/2013/06/07/us-spy-chief-slams-reprehensible-leak-of-nsa-surveillance-scheme/
Clapper is “offended” that Americans now know that the NSA is spying on the ordinary life of every American. Clapper wants Snowden to be severely punished for his “reckless disclosure” that the US government is totally violating the privacy that the US Constitution guarantees to every US citizen.
President Obama, allegedly educated in constitutional law, justified Clapper’s program of spying on every communication of every American citizen as a necessary violation of Americans’ civil liberties that “protects your civil liberties.” Contrast the lack of veracity of the President of the United States with the truthfulness of Snowden, who correctly stated that the NSA spying is an “existential threat to democracy.”
The presstitutes are busy at work defending Clapper and Obama. On June 9, CNN rolled out former CIA case officer Bob Baer to implant into the public’s mind that Snowden, far from trying to preserve US civil liberties, might be a Chinese spy and that Snowden’s revelations might be indicative of a Chinese espionage case.
Demonization is the US government’s technique for discrediting Bradley Manning for complying with the US Military Code and reporting war crimes and for persecuting Julian Assage of Wikileaks for reporting leaked information about the US government’s crimes. Demonization and false charges will be the government’s weapon against Snowden.
If Washington and its presstitutes can convince Americans that courageous people, who are trying to inform Americans that their historic rights are disappearing into a police state, are espionage agents of foreign powers, America can continue to be subverted by its own government.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. What is the purpose of the spying program?
Even if an American believes the official stories of 9/11 and the Boston Marathon Bombing, these are the only two terrorist acts in the US that resulted in the loss of human life in 12 years. Far more people are killed in traffic accidents and from bad diets. Why should the Constitution and civil liberty be deep-sixed because of two alleged terrorist acts in 12 years?
What is astounding is the absence of terrorist attacks. Washington is in the second decade of invading and destroying Muslim governments and countries. Civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are extremely high, and in those countries that Washington has not yet invaded, such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria, civilians are being murdered by Washington’s drones and proxies on the ground.
It is extraordinary that Washington’s brutal 12 year assault on Muslim lives in six countries has not resulted in at least one dozen real, not fake FBI orchestrated, terrorist attacks in the US every day.
How can something as rare as terrorism justify the destruction of the US Constitution and US civil liberty? How safe is any American when their government regards every citizen as a potential suspect who has no rights?
Why is there no discussion of this in American public life? Watch the presstitutes turn Snowden’s revelations into an account of his disaffection and motives and away from the existential threat to democracy and civil liberty.
What is the government’s real agenda? Clearly, “the war on terror” is a front for an undeclared agenda. In “freedom and democracy” America, citizens have no idea what their government’s motives are in fomenting endless wars and a gestapo police state. The only information Americans have comes from whistleblowers, who Obama ruthlessly prosecutes. The presstitutes quickly discredit the information and demonize the whistleblowers.
Germans in the Third Reich and Soviet citizens in the Stalin era had a better idea of their government’s agendas than do “freedom and democracy” Americans today. The American people are the most uninformed people in modern history.
In America there is no democracy that holds government accountable. There is only a brainwashed people who are chaff in the wind.
 By Paul Craig Roberts

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Jim Rogers - America is More Communist than China

During a forced liquidation, there are some common things that happen. They way to make money is to find the things where the fundamentals have been unimpaired. A lot of companies and equities have been impaired. One thing that has been impaired is commodities. It is farmers, miners, and lumberjacks who are going to make the money in the future. Agriculture has been a terrible business for the past 30 years.

No one who went to school became a farmer. They became journalists or financiers. There is a shortage of farmers, but there is a tremendous amount of opportunity there. This isn't an economic collapse forever. In the 1970s, the economy was terrible, but commodity prices kept going up because there were shortages. That is going to happen again.

We are running out of oil reserves, so oil prices are going to go up. People will use any other kind of alternative energy that they can find. Solar, wind, energy will become more competitive. Wind power is not competitive unless oil is at $80. Solar power is not competitive unless oil is over $100. People aren't going to change the world unless they can make money. Few people who want to be altruistic have any meaningful impact on the world.

China calls itself communist. But Italy calls itself a Catholic country. They are far less centrally controlled than the United States. There are certainly problems with China, but things there are far more free than you would suspect.

The Government’s plan to seize private retirement accounts


You Were Warned Over and Over Again!
The Government’s plan to seize private retirement accounts, continues.
The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, need your retirement accounts.
China no longer buys our Treasury (debt) Bonds, the Feds are forced to buy over 61% of unsold Treasury Bonds. The Treasury Department needs new buyers… You! The equity in IRA’s and 401k’s will keep the system from total collapse!
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Obama Care Tax  has opened the door for more socialistic government programs. Discover the new steps that have been taken toward nationalizing IRA’s and 401k’s!
Discover:
  • Who’s behind the plan
  • The new proposed legislation
  • Who will be in charge of the equity
and much more…
What States are already in the works? What will they do with Your IRA’s and 401k’s?
This is Not a Rumor, See the Senate Bills for Yourself
Click Here — To Learn More
Greed: Last year Washington raked in $1.16 trillion in individual income tax revenue and expects to squeeze $1.36 trillion out of taxpayers in 2013. But President Obama wants more — and he's coming after your retirement.
Obama's budget proposes lowering the amount Americans can put away in retirement accounts without a tax penalty. Retirement contributions are made in pre-tax dollars, which lowers your taxable income. Capping the contributions increases taxable income, raising the tax burden. It also cuts into the dollars available for retirement.
The president's proposal limits accounts to $3 million in accumulated savings, enough to fund an annual retirement annuity of $205,000 a year.
Under current law, workers under 50 can place $5,500 in their IRAs each year in pre-tax dollars. Those 50 and over can contribute $6,500 in 2013. Contributions to 401(k) plans are capped at $17,500. The money is taxed when it's taken out during retirement.
Obama's plan won't raise much revenue — just $9 billion over 10 years. It's simply more of the Obama fairness campaign. The White House made this clear when it said last week that under current law "some wealthy individuals" can amass "substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving."
Think about that statement for a moment, for it reveals a corrupt mind-set. The administration is saying that America has a government that believes it has the moral authority to decide just what a "reasonable" level of retirement savings is. That's an alarming statement.
Of course the White House and its allies will pitch the plan as a reasonable means to bring down deficits.
How, they will ask, can anyone object to having the rich "contribute" a little more to the solution?
But the political left is never honest about the policies it sells to the public. Small tax hikes become hefty ones. A bit of regulation grows into a grinding regulatory regime. Limited help for the poor produces a welfare state. Environmental laws, supposedly to clean up our air and water, actually wrest control of the economy from the private sector. Background checks and registration are the precursors for firearm confiscation. ObamaCare is the forerunner of a single-payer system.
Democrats are always poking a camel's nose under the tent with the full intention of pushing the beast all the way in as soon as possible.
Given that, don't be surprised if Obama's retirement account idea leads to even more revenue than the $9 billion it's supposed to raise. If it becomes law, Democrats will take the next step, putting a stranglehold on the trillions Americans now hold in their retirement accounts.
Already Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief Richard Cordray said the agency wants to "help" Americans manage the $19.4 trillion they've put away for their retirements, and is "exploring ... in terms of whether and what authority we have."
Three years ago on these pages former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and policy analyst Peter Ferrara warned that "Washington is developing plans for your retirement savings."
"The idea," they said, "is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.
"They will tell you that you are 'investing' your money. ... But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds."
And then there's the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class released in February 2010 that, according to Connie Hair of Human Events, posed the idea of seizing "private 401(k) plans for government disbursement."
Government envy of retirement accounts isn't unique to the current White House.
The Washington Post reported 20 years ago the Clinton administration was pondering an "unprecedented effort by the federal government to deal with its budget woes by turning to the more than $4 trillion in cash, stocks and other investments held by pension funds."
It's unlikely Obama will be able to tap into Americans' retirements this year or next. But the Democrats will keep trying. It's just too tempting.

Big Brother tracking Our Every Movement?!?!"mass tracking through license plate scanners"

 Brian Montopoli /
CBS News/ July 17, 2013, 2:16 PM

ACLU Warns of Mass Tracking Through License Plate Scanners

    
 
The American Civil Liberties Union is warning that law enforcement officials are using license plate scanners to amass massive and unregulated databases that can be used to track law-abiding citizens as their go about their daily lives.

In a new report, "You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans' Movements," the ACLU discusses the data culled from license plate scanners - cameras mounted on patrol cars, overpasses and elsewhere to record your license plate number and location at a given time. There are tens of thousands such cameras now in operation, according to the group, with the data in some cases being stored indefinitely.

The cameras, which are often installed thanks to federal funding, are designed to catch car thieves and other criminals. The ACLU's Catherine Crump writes that the organization does not object to "when they're used to identify people who are driving stolen cars or are subject to an arrest warrant." But, she continues, "they should not become tools for tracking where each of us has driven."

The ACLU report is the result of an analysis of 26,000 pages of documents from police departments around the country, obtained through nearly 600 freedom of information requests. It finds that while some jurisdictions keep the information gleaned from the scanners for a short time - 48 hours in the case of the Minnesota State Patrol - many hold onto the data for years. That includes the Delaware Department of Homeland Security and the state of New Jersey, which keep the data for five years, and towns in Texas and New York, which are presumed to keep the data indefinitely.




The organization complains that there are "virtually no rules in place" to keep officials from tracking "everybody all the time." The town of Grapevine, Texas reported scanning an average of 14,547 plates each day in September 2012 and said it had nearly 2 million plates stored in its database. Milipitas, California has 4.7 million plates in its database. Neither town has a policy in place to regulate that data. The ACLU also warns that the data is being fed into larger databases, with the private National Vehicle Location Service now holding more than 800 million license plate records. The group's database is used by more than 2,200 law enforcement customers.

"Trips to places of worship, political protests, or gun ranges can be powerful indicators of people's beliefs," writes Crump. "Is it really the government's business how often you go to the drug store or liquor store, what doctors you visit, and the identities of your friends?" The report warns that the data can be used in an official capacity to spy on protesters or target communities based on their religious beliefs, or unofficially by a police officer who wants to keep an eye on a romantic rival.

The ACLU is calling for regulations to be put in place to prevent broad-based tracking using the scanners. It said the scanners should be used in a limited capacity, that the data be stored for less than a month unless it has been specifically flagged, that the public should be able to find out if a plate is contained in a database, that the data not be shared with third parties, and that scanner usage be reported publicly on an annual basis.

Monday, June 24, 2013

Revealing Reality: US & UK 'evolve into full blown police states'

Published on Jun 22, 2013
The US government has filed criminal charges against Edward Snowden - the man who told the world about the scope of America's global surveillance network. Washington now wants help from Hong Kong officials - because Snowden's been hiding in the Chinese territory since unleashing the revelations about the National Security Agency. Julian Assange has meanwhile published a speech in which he severely criticizes President Obama for his handling of whistle blowers. RT is joined by geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser, stopimperalism.com.

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT

RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

HOW TO BANKRUPT THE WORLD !!! GOLDMAN SACHS MASTERS OF GREED

TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.
What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.
My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.
I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.

Greg Smith is resigning today as a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Is Barack Obama a pathological liar? Top 60 broken promises examined (Photos)

Examiner looks at Obama's speeches and campaign pledges between 2007 and 2013 to assess the president's lies, broken promises, hypocrisy, and empty rhetoric. In Washington, the easiest thing to do is talk about change, especially when you're a former "community organizer" (i.e., code word for frustrated socialist) with zero business experience.
Psychologists define pathological lying as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view . . . and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime". The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are living in a fantasy, according to the Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
Here's our top 60 list of Obama's deceit, in no particular order. (All quotations are statements Obama made in recent years.)
1. Promised an open, more transparent government. In 2008, candidate Obama said "No more secrecy. That's a commitment I'm going to make to you as you as president. No more secrecy." (Video) a. Obamacare, Obama's landmark legislation from his first term, was passed in secrecy. In an infamous 2009 interview with ABC, the president insisted several times that Obamacare "is not a tax". However, Obama's solicitor general argued before the Supreme Court that the healthcare act was indeed a tax, and in 2012, the nation's highest court agreed. Transparency? In 2012, Donald Trump offered $5 million to a charity of Obama’s choosing in exchange for the release of the president’s college and passport records. As of 2013, Obama has spent over $2 million in legal fees to seal his personal and professional records from public view.
2. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.”
a. (Video) Apparently, the campaigner-in-chief doesn't understand that communism destroyed the Soviet Union. Pathalogical liars live in a fantasy world.
3. In a 2008 interview with interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, then-candidate Obama said “. . . you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith . . .”
a. Obama has always maintained that he is Christian. However, the above interview showed his Freudian slip. Also, his wedding ring allegedly bears the inscription “There is no God but Allah”.
4. In 2008, the Associated Press obtained Obama's Indonesian grade school registration which, when translated into English, identifies him as an Indonesian citizen.
a. Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution states that “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
5. In 2011, a team of forensic experts organized by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio looked into Obama's submitted birth certificate. Arpaio told Fox News his forensic team's conclusion that Obama's birth certification is “definitely fraudulent”. After six months of analyzing the document, Arpaio's team discovered code errors, computer-generated marks, and manipulated seals on the document.
a. The White House responded by releasing a different birth certificate.
6. “As president, I’m going to make it impossible for congressman and lobbyists to slip pork barrel projects or corporate welfare into law when no one’s looking . . . . No more secrecy.”
a. Pork barrel spending continues. In 2011 it was disclosed that the Obama administration has been conducting secret talks with lobbyists at coffee shops so that the meetings could not be recorded by the White House logbook. In 2012, earmarks are expected to exceed $40 billion.
Want some examples of pork barrel spending under Obama's watch? (Video)
  • $255,000,000 to upgrade the M1 Abrams tank, which is opposed by the Pentagon.
  • $120,000,000 for alternative energy research within the Air Force, Army, and Navy. According to Sen. John McCain, the Navy has spent in excess of $400 per gallon for approximately 20,000 gallons of algae-based biofuel.
  • $3,000,000 for "aquatic plant control".
  • $3,388,000 for "national fish hatchery system operations".
  • $114,770,000 for the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF), which supports global democratization efforts.
  • $18,000,000 to rebuild the government's recovery.gov website. Indian IT firms could have done this project for less than $50,000.
  • $10,000,000 to build a one-mile, 20-lane highway outside of Salt Lake City.
  • $19,000,000 free-clam program to benefit people who have never eaten clams.
  • $1,800,000 million to study why pigs smell.
  • $1,900,000 million for a water taxi in Connecticut.
7. “When there’s a bill on my desk as president, you – the public – will have five days to look at it online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”
a. (Video) Not even one credible attempt at this initiative.
8. In 2009, Obama submitted his 2009 IRS tax return which shows him using a Connecticut social security number that fails the government’s E-verify background check. The SSN is tied to a Harrison J. Bounel. The Social Security Administration does not recycle social security numbers and duplicate use is a red flag for identity fraud. Bounel is reportedly a relative of Michelle Robinson, Obama’s wife.
9. In May 2012, the president's former literary agent Acton & Dystel produced an unpublished leaflet stating that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”. The promotional booklet was written in 1991. In the vast majority of cases, authors write their own bio which implies that Obama himself stated that he was “born in Kenya”.
10. Post meetings between federal agencies and lobbyists online.
a. Never happened. In 2013, it was disclosed that the Environmental Protection Agency caved in to lobbying pressure from the American Chemical Association and reversed itself on enhancing drinking water safety standards.
11. “When there’s a tax bill being debated in congress, you would know the names of the corporations that would benefit and how much money they would get.”
a. (Video) Never happened.
12. “We would put every corporate tax break and every pork barrel spending on the online for every American to see, and you will know who asked for them. And you can decide whether your representatives are actually representing you.”
a. Not this one either. But the sheeple applauded at the time.
13. “. . . broadcasting [health care] negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people can see what the choices are. Because what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.”
a. (Video) On the contrary, Obama encouraged congressional leaders to skip conference committee negotiations on the healthcare reform act. C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb sent a letter to Obama and congressional leaders requesting television coverage of the negotiations. His request was denied. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to answer questions about the broken campaign pledge.
14. “I’m in this race to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over.”
a. One word: Solyndra. One taxpayer-funded loan down the drain: $500 million. The Washington Post reported in 2012 that lobbyists are a constant presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
15. Obama’s official Facebook page shows a doctored photo of Ann Dunham, his mother, having a right hand of an African American man.
16. In 2012, the New York Times reported that up to 70 percent of Obama’s Twitter followers are fake.
17. “They [lobbyists] will not work in my White House.”
a. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, at least 374 people in the Obama administration are known lobbyists. Several work in the White House due to a loophole in the executive order on lobbyists that Obama signed in 2009.
18. “Lobbyists won’t drown out your voice when I am president of the United States of America.”
a. According to the New York Times, at least 15 “bundlers” who raised money for Obama’s campaign efforts are current or former lobbyists.
b. As a U.S. senator from Illinois, Obama issued a public apology for reaping a $300,000 discount on his $1.65 million mansion in Illinois from convicted lobbyist Tony Rezko.
19. “. . . having inherited a trillion dollar deficit . . .”
a. (Video) Obama created trillion dollar deficits, and is projected to create the biggest budget deficits in U.S. history. In 2013, the deficit is projected to be $977 billion. When Bush left office in 2008, the deficit was $438 billion for the year. Obama never inherited “trillion dollar deficits”. That’s a lie.
20. “We need to focus on what we need to move the American economy forward, not on what’s nice to have.”
a. In his first term, Obama’s signature legislation was Obamacare, which is the single biggest tax increase in American history. Not jobs or the economy. He blocked construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline which would have immediately created tens of thousands of jobs.
21. “. . . as we develop a full budget . . . we’re gonna go through our books page by page . . .”
a. The U.S. senate has illegally refused to pass a budget since 2009 because Democrats, led by Harry Reid, won’t let the item go to the full floor for a vote. (Video) Obama can easily pressure senate Democrats to pass a budget, as federal law requires each year, but he won’t do it.
22. “ . . . we’re gonna go through our books page by page, line by line, to eliminate waste and inefficiency.”
a. Spending items and pork barrel projects still costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars each year on useless projects. According to the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Obama administration spent $20 million on a demonstration project to build wooden bridges, $1.2 million to study the sexual behavior of woodchucks, $2 million to construct ancient Hawaiian canoes, $1 million to preserve a sewer as a historical monument, and $19 million to study the gas emissions of cow farts. Yes, cow farts.
23. “We have already identified over $2 trillion dollars in deficit reductions that will help us cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term.
a. Instead of cutting the government’s annual budget deficit in half, Obama has more than doubled it.
24. “The process whereby Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now (2009) . . .”
a. (Video) Four years later, Guantanamo is still open and Obama has no intention of closing it down.
25. In 2004, then-U.S. senator Barack Obama said that there was no (policy) difference between him and George W. Bush on the war on terrorism.
a. When running for president, Obama repeatedly vilified George W. Bush and claimed that he was always against the war on Iraq.
26. “I’m proud of our campaign because it’s based on telling the truth.”
a. In 2012, analysis done by Forbes concluded that much of Obama’s negative television ads aimed at Mitt Romney contained false claims and misleading attacks. In other words, Obama has run a campaign full of lies in 2008 and 2012.
27. In 2009, Obama told NBC that his presidency would be a “one-term proposition” if the economy did not turn around in three years.
a. In running for a second term, Obama claimed to voters that the economy had improved since taking office. That was clearly not the case. The unemployment rate hovered at 8 percent and would have been much higher of the Labor Department counted the 9 million Americans who have left the workforce since 2011. Also, by 2012 a record 46 million Americans have become dependent on food stamps.
28. In 2008, Obama said that “adding $4 trillion to the national debt is unpatriotic” in a campaign event in North Dakota.
a. Since taking office, Obama added $5.8 trillion to the national debt, which represents the largest increase under one president. Not only that, he broke the record in just one term.
29. During the 2008 presidential debates, Obama blasted George W. Bush for doubling the nation’s debt to $10 trillion.
a. As of early 2013, America’s national debt equals 104 percent of GDP. The national debt increased by 60 percent during the first four years of Obama’s presidency. That’s a rate higher than George W. Bush’s eight years in office.
30. In 2006, Sen. Barack Obama said, “Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
a. (Video) In April 2011, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Obama "regrets" voting against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 as U.S. senator. As president, he had flip flopped on the issue. In 2012, Obama proposed to congress that he be given the unilateral authority to increase the debt ceiling on the federal government. This is against the constitution which assigns the government’s spending and borrowing powers solely with the legislative branch.
31. As an Illinois state senator, Obama opposed gay marriage. During both inaugurations, he also swore – with his hand on the bible – to uphold the laws of the land.
a. (Video) After occupying higher political office, Obama began to support gay marriage. More troubling, he ordered the Justice Department to refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act which was signed into law during the presidency of Bill Clinton.
32. “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
a. Obama’s infamous words on July 13, 2012 that almost cost him re-election. The White House would later claim that Obama’s words were taken out of context. Common sense dictates that Obama’s statement was a plain lie, so was the White House’s claim.
33. “Any middle class family will see their incomes go up by $3,000 because of the Recovery Act, helping them get back much of what they lost due to this recession.”
a. Despite the $831 billion stimulus bill passed in 2009, the median income has dropped by more than $3,000 to $50,100 in 2012. That’s a more than $6,000 yearly difference per U.S. household between what Obama promised in 2008 and what he delivered by the time of his re-election.
34. In a June 2012 with the White House press corps, Obama said that the “private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy is in the state and local government.”
a. Thus, Obama claimed, during the worst recovery in the nation’s history, that the economy is “doing fine” and that the government, at all levels, needed to grow despite America’s unsustainable debt and spending levels. When he made the statement, the number of Americans relying on food stamps had doubled since Obama first took office. Even the president’s former adviser, Steven Rattner, did not think that the private sector was “doing fine”.
35. In early July 2011, Obama said that he'd "be turning [50-years-old] in a week". However, his submitted birth certificate shows that he was born on August 4, or three full weeks after the date of the press conference.
36. Obama's INS documents at the national archives are missing for the entire week (around August 1961) in which Ann Dunham was supposed to have returned to the United States with young Barack in tow.
37. In 2007, then-Senator Obama said he wanted to make sure no American is without access to vital medical attention.
a. Even after passage of Obamacare, health experts estimate that in 2014 over 22 million Americans will still lack access to basic health services.
38. In 2007, Obama said, “If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House . . . I’ll walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America.”
a. There have been state-level efforts in Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, Maine, Florida and Indiana to curtail collective bargaining rights. Obama has never appeared in a single protest rally.
39. In 2008, candidate Obama pushed for reform of the Patriot Act. He also called for enhanced judicial oversight and a reduction of certain warrantless searches.
a. (Video) During his first term, Obama resisted any reforms to the sweeping spy law and sought to extend the Patriot Act. He also used extensive use of drone killings that have resulted in the deaths of American citizens overseas without granting those individuals due process, judicial or legislative oversight.
40. In 2008, candidate Obama promised that he would end the war in Afghanistan by July 2011. In a campaign speech, he said "you can take that one to the bank".
a. (Video) At the time of his campaign speeches, most military leaders did not believe Obama’s timeline was realistic. The president has since targeted 2014 as his deadline for withdrawing most, not necessarily all, U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
41. In September 2012, the Obama administration blamed the Benghazi attacks on a purported YouTube video that attacked Islam.
a. (Video) The eight-hour ordeal, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, was a planned attack by Al Qaeda fighters.
42. In the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Obama claimed that he was in constant communication with his staff and national security apparatus. He also claimed to have issued “three directives” to protect diplomats.
a. During congressional hearings in February 2013, defense secretary Leon Panetta and joint chiefs chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey admitted under oath that they only had one phone call with the president during the Libya attacks.
43. In April 2012, Obama claimed that if the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare, the high court’s actions would constitute “judicial overreach”.
a. The constitution grants the judicial branch the authority to limit the powers of the legislative and executive branches of government. Obama was a lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Yet, he failed to grasp this elementary lesson on the U.S. constitution and the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a constitutional scholar, remarked that when the president questions whether or not the Supreme Court has the authority to invalidate the statute, it “belies the history of the country and the president’s education of that history.”
44. “Let me be absolutely clear: if you are a family making less than $250,000 a year . . . you will not see your taxes go up.”
a. (Video) Obamacare is considered the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Additionally, Obama has proposed multiple tax increases throughout his first and second terms. Just sixteen days into his presidency back in 2009, he signed into law and increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco. All smokers making less than $250,000 a year saw their taxes go up.
45. In 2008, then-candidate Obama said “If you choose change, you will have a nominee who doesn't take a dime from Washington lobbyists and PACs.”
a. (Video) By the 2012 November elections, Obama’s Super Pacs had raised hundreds of millions of dollars and were run by former White House staffers. The campaign also received tens of millions of dollars from groups, such as Solyndra, who received government bailout money or guaranteed loans. Records show that Obama ranked second only to Chris Dodd in the entire congress in receiving donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were responsible for the housing collapse and financial crisis of 2008.
46. Throughout the 2012 campaign, Obama pushed for ending the Bush-era tax cuts.
a. (Video) In reality, he agreed to extend the tax cuts which contained certain tax advantages for the wealthy.
47. Cap-and-Trade. In 2007, then-senator Obama said “As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming — an 80 percent reduction by 2050.”
a. (Video) After Democrats in congress suffered heavy losses in 2012, Obama reversed himself on Cap-and-Trade. "[Cap-and-trade] was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end."
48. In 2008, Obama promised to send people to the moon by 2020, and then Mars. One campaign material said “He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.”
a. (Video) Obama ended NASA’s space shuttle program on August 31, 2011. America is now dependent on Russia for trips to the International Space Station.
49. In 2008, Obama supported a federal guarantee that all employers provide seven paid sick days per year.
a. Hardly tried to get this done. Never happened once he got elected.
50. In 2008, Obama promised to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill in congress by the end of his first year in office.
a. By spring of 2013, three years later, he still hasn’t introduced a bill in congress. In February 2013, a proposal was leaked by an administration official to USA Today. It discloses that Obama wants full amnesty for over 11 million illegals.
51. In a 2008 speech in Jordan, Obama said “Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change.”
a. (Video) Throughout his presidency, Obama has been lambasted for alienating Israel. His nominee for secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, has repeatedly made anti-Israel remarks in public, and considers Israel a bigger threat to stability in the Middle East than Iran. In 2012, Obama famously ignored Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request for an urgent meeting when Netanyahu was visiting America.
52. In 2008, without his teleprompter, Obama told a crowd in Oregon that he has campaigned at all “57 states”.
a. Even grade school kids know what’s wrong with this statement.
53. In 2008, then-candidate Obama gave a radio interview in which he spoke about his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. “She is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away . . . and that's just the nature of race in our society.”
a. (Video) In other words, Obama believes that a “typical white person” in American society automatically has an adverse reaction towards other ethnic groups.
54. In 2009, Obama said “ . . . there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died – an entire town destroyed.”
a. (Video) A president has a duty to understand the nature of a tragedy. The Kansas tornado he was referring to killed 12 people, not 10,000.
55. “I am not an ideologue. I’m not”
a. (Video) Hello, anyone home?
56. In 2009, Obama promised to end the income tax for seniors making less than $50,000. “Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year – and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all.”
a. After taking office, Obama never proposed legislation honoring such a promise and never covered the subject again.
57. In 2008, candidate Obama promised to end all no-bid contracts over $25,000. “Will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid.”
a. Since taking office, Obama never ordered the Office of Management and Budget to require competitive bids for government contracts over $25,000.
58. In an effort to secure votes from battleground states like Florida, in 2007 then-candidate Obama said that he will double federal spending on cancer research. “ . . .will double federal funding for cancer research within 5 years, focusing on NIH (National Institutes of Health) and NCI (National Cancer Institute).”
a. Obama increased the budget by just 8.3 percent in his most recent budget (2012).
59. During the 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans, Obama claimed that he was in constant communication with his national security team. On November 4, David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser, appeared on Fox News Sunday and he told Chris Wallace, "When word of the attack campaign, the president was meeting with his top national security folks."
a. Not true. In February 2013, Leon Panetta told a congressional hearing that the president only had one phone call with his secretary of defense and military advisers while the eight-hour attack took place. White House staffers also attributed the consulate attack to a YouTube video when intelligence officials knew it was a terrorist plot organized by Al Qaeda. An unreleased CBS video shows Obama admitting that the attack was planned by Muslim radicals but the footage was never aired on national television.
60. In 2012, Obama was secretly taped telling Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, "This is my last election . . . After my election, I'll have more flexibility." Obama was talking about U.S. missile defense.
a. (Video) Self explanatory.
_________________
Pathological lying has several causes including a dysfunctional family; sexual or physical abuse in childhood; impulse control disorders; accommodating or suggestible personality traits; personality disorders such as sociopathic or narcissistic behaviors; substance abuse or substance abuse in family.
According to the Mayo Clinic, “the prospect of power can make individuals . . . resort to lying to maintain power or control over others. When they lose power, they may resort to more lying. When they gain power and success from lying, it is thus reinforced. The lie becomes a useful tool for this person in denigrating others to boost their own reputation . . . . They may create realities to . . . create a successful image for others.
For more on Barack Obama’s broken campaign promises, see Politifact.com.
Share your comments below.
Note: Subscribe to Republican Examiner

democratic socialist's of America

Let us stipulate, as lawyers like to say, that President Obama has a deplorable record on civil liberties, one that threatens long-term damage to the country’s constitutional culture.
Why, then, has his base of support not been eroded decisively? Why have so many on the left fallen silent, after railing against George W. Bush’s rights violations, as Obama has prolonged and codified most of the same practices? And why have so few on the right, riding a groundswell of resentment toward big government, failed to resent the biggest governmental intrusions into personal privacy since the FBI’s domestic spying during the Cold War?
The facts are not in dispute. While Obama has ordered an end to CIA kidnapping and torture, he has personally approved kill lists containing the names of American citizens to be targeted by drones. While he has tried to move the accused masterminds of 9/11 and others from Guantanamo to civilian courts (only to be blocked by congressional Republicans), he has also embraced military commissions and indefinite detention. He voiced misgivings about a bill subjecting suspected terrorists to military arrest — whether foreigners or Americans, whether in Afghanistan or Alabama — and then signed it into law.
In practically every significant court case, his administration has argued for an expansive encroachment on individual rights, much as the Bush administration did. Obama’s Justice Department has successfully opposed the habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo prisoners, persuading conservative judges to rule in one case that sketchy, unverified intelligence reports must be presumed correct. This absurdity has now entered case law as an erosion of the venerable right, dating from the Magna Carta, to summon your jailer before an impartial magistrate.
The administration has continued undermining the Fourth Amendment. It argued in the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, that law enforcement should be free to attach GPS tracking devices to vehicles without showing probable cause and getting warrants. It has vigorously used a tool that Obama denounced in the 2008 campaign: the administrative subpoenas known as National Security Letters, which are issued without warrants to acquire the library, Internet, banking and other records of individuals suspected of nothing at all. His Justice Department has invoked state secrets, as did Bush’s, to deny wrongfully imprisoned and tortured victims the right to sue the government. The administration has sought broad immunity for Secret Service agents and others in law enforcement who arrest people exercising their First Amendment right to speech.

Obama’s solicitor general has just made a catch-22 argument before the Supreme Court that could exempt from constitutional challenge the law that authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without probable cause — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, broadened in 2008 with Obama’s vote as senator. Because the surveillance by the National Security Agency is secret, his administration argues, there is no way for the lawyers, journalists and rights organizations who suspect they are being monitored to prove that they are, in fact, targets of surveillance, and therefore they have no standing to sue.
These acts aren’t deal-breakers for many voters, except among a small number of civil liberties advocates, such as Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic, whose blog “Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama” deplored the left’s lack of outrage. Other liberals, seeing a constellation of social and economic issues, don’t want to damage Obama’s re-election chances by speaking out. He’ll probably get the votes of most lawyers for the ACLU, which has criticized him persistently. And his judicial nominees will be more liberal than Mitt Romney’s. So there is no opportunity for principled voting. Without a civil liberties candidate with a chance to win, pragmatic balloting is unavoidable.
A symmetrical silence about Obama’s rights policies afflicts Republicans. They worry that government is too big when it funds programs for the poor but not when it funds wars. It is too big when it regulates business but not when it regulates individual lives. It can decide whom people may marry, restrict women’s control over their pregnancies and evade the Fourth Amendment by invading Americans’ privacy. Only true libertarians seem to care.
But there is more here than hypocrisy. Terrorism remains a threat, as the FBI repeatedly reminds the country with sting operations that lure hapless wannabes into dramatic plots they couldn’t execute without undercover agents. Each arrest stokes the public’s fear. Furthermore, rights violations are largely clandestine and invisible. Their targets are “others,” meaning foreigners, terrorists, common criminals and various people not like “us.”
Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, polling by the AP and the National Opinion Research Center found that those surveyed supported, by 65 to 21 percent, a government policy to read, without warrants, any emails to people inside the U.S. from countries known for terrorism. By 48 to 37 percent, respondents favored warrantless monitoring of U.S. citizens’ Internet searches “to watch for suspicious activities,” not further defined. In other words, I’m willing to give up your rights for my security.
It’s not generally understood that constitutional rights are not divisible, that those denied to others, including suspected terrorists, are also denied to “us.” For example, Ernesto Miranda of the Miranda warning, who secured our right to silence during police interrogation, was not a model citizen. He had a long record and had kidnapped and raped a mentally defective teenager. Yet his right now belongs to us all.
A certain appreciation of constitutional law is required to grasp what has happened under the Bush and Obama administrations, and neither the press nor the school system educates well on these issues. It has been widely noted that global warming went unmentioned in the presidential debates, but hardly anyone has observed that both poverty and civil liberties (and the Supreme Court) were also ignored by the candidates and moderators.
It took a comedian, Jon Stewart, to raise Bush-era surveillance policies with Obama, on The Daily Show on Oct. 18. “We have modified them,” the president said. “Now, they’re not real sexy issues.”
Stewart replied: “You don’t know what I find sexy.”
David K. Shipler's latest books are two companion volumes on civil liberties: "The Rights of the People: How Our Search for Safety Invades Our Liberties" and "Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America." He writes online at The Shipler Report.



democratic socialist's of America  http://www.dsausa.org/

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

This Isn't About Snowden: It's About the Other Traitors Still In the Room


So let's review the narrative as it stands regarding Edward Snowden and see if we can find the missing elephant in the room.
Let's assume that the most vile of human beings --one that is not only a traitor, but also thief and a liar and a burglar, a kidnapper, an arsonist and a rapist --proves to you and the world that the following has happened to you and your family:
--A group of people are stalking you, collecting photos, listening to, monitoring, recording and saving your telephone conversations, surfing habits, and building a database and chart with everyone you know, interact with, whether your family, work, or acquaintances. In addition, your political and religious beliefs, where you shop, what you buy and even what you like to eat and what music you listen to and the books you read.
Now let's assume that you take the side of the people who call this hypothetical person a traitor, a thief and a liar and a burglar, and a kidnapper, and an arsonist and a rapist and that you agree with them, and further that this person should be tried and punished.
Good enough. That's one criminal down. Now what about the other one?
What other one?
Remember the other criminal that you now know is stalking you, collecting your photos, listening to calls and record your internet, social, shopping, political, and religious connections?
Yeah what about that criminal?
Because what's being overlooked quite purposefully in the media, on the Senate floor, and in the Oval Office is that there are two traitors in the room.
Always remember that one traitor has outed the other.
And that other traitor? He (or they are) is desperately trying to airbrush themselves out of the room before anyone notices.
On that note, it can be said that only the mind of someone like that of a violent rapist or of a sexual predator (a sociopath or psychopath) would characterize and compare the physical and mental violation the most intimate parts and recesses of a person mind and body as a balancing act between actual rape or molestation to a medical procedure that is intended to detect and diagnose disease in his or her victim, and where the resulting emotional and physical scarring inflicted is nothing compared to the favor they did you.
Or the favor they claim to be doing for millions of victims so raped and molested, if in the process, they do detect and discover some disease, and in so doing clothe themselves as worthy of pity, and all of us worthy of guilt and shame and perhaps punishment, for the thankless job we've forced them to perform over our bruised, bloodied and violated bodies and souls.
The ungrateful worms that we are.
We're supposed to lay back and enjoy it and thank them for it -- not ruin their special moment nor make them feel guilty.
And so it is with the rape of our most intimate and private thoughts and words. We consider it as such not because there is something to hide, but because they are priceless and must be protected from harm or misuse.
We would feel wrong to share them with anyone other than those we deeply trust and further, that we have found that they have not, nor would not take advantage, of our most vulnerable moments to gain something at our expense, which it ultimately is at our expense, in the instant that our words and thoughts are extracted against our will, without our knowledge and surely without our consent and used against us, to blackmail, coerce, ruin, or jail us, or to be used against those we love.
And as we survey the landscape dotted with the characters who have now revealed themselves to have raped the products of our hearts and minds, are we even able to retroactively absolve them of a crime because they haven't taken advantage of us in any other way?
Would they have been worthy of our consideration for our most intimate thoughts and to have and hold the things we hold dear?
Would the rapist had been our friend under other circumstances if he or she had only courted us instead and won our trust and respect?
Or is our outrage justified because in addition, they've rifled through and spent all of our money? Because they've opened trillions in credit accounts in our names and hung us with the balance? Because they've audited and harassed people for their political beliefs? Arranged laws so that anyone can be detained without charge or trial?
Hadn't they already proven themselves to be abusive spouses or crooked business partners or lying, thieving employees, before they became leering, scheming eavesdroppers and peeping toms?
Hadn't they already failed the bare minimum tests you would have imposed on anyone you would remotely think of having sex with, or making love to, or sharing to deepest secrets with?
Then what makes them think this will be forgotten or forgiven?
What makes them think that any and all attorney's reading this won't be compelled to sue for records to prove that attorney client privilege has been in fact violated?
What makes them think that any and all physicians won't be compelled to sue for records to prove that doctor patient confidentiality has been in fact violated?
What makes them think that companies will not sue for having their trade secrets and business plans (recorded) stolen from them?
What makes them think they can claim they know all of our secrets, even some "crimes", but not be aware of their own "crimes" in the process of admitting to knowledge of ours?
How can they claim to know all about everyone to the exclusion of themselves?
How? By thinking like rapists and predators and denouncing you as an ungrateful victim for the favor they did you. That's how.
By believing their crimes to be gifts while demanding you be an accomplice to them by demanding your silence .In the meantime, their claim of knowing all convicts them of all, or do they think they would be immune to same rod being put to their backs that they have fashioned for ours?
They are now accomplices to everything including the real possibility that all this spying provides an ancillary benefit a something of a gateway drug: To the harder drug of blackmail.
You see, one chief advantage of the Executive being able to spy on everyone, including Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Generals, CEO's, of any party affiliation, etc., is that it's easy to blackmail them into submission and obedience or get rid of them whenever you want.
As you think about just how much spying was and is reportedly going on, think back over the last 10 years or so and recall just how many high profile people in the Federal (and State) government suddenly lost their jobs, decided to step down, or not run for office again, and had their reputations destroyed over "leaked" personal information that was embarrassing, or made them vulnerable, or got them ostracized.
It may help explain the behavior of those who are mysteriously (or maybe not so mysteriously?) currently and to your astonishment, defending the very system that they know for sure already spies on them, and most likely know has them blackmailed as well. It's said that in organized crime circles, the point is made to extract your obedience through complicity - which is to simply make you an accomplice to the crimes they commit- so that if they go down, you go down with them.
As a gateway drug then, spying opens a door to blackmail which has the power to silence anyone, and moreover to compel those under it's influence to defend it.
So to us it doesn’t matter who Snowden works for, or whether he’s coached or not, or whether someday even more heinous things about him are said. Hang him for it.
Because what matters Naomi is who this traitor or puppet, or whatever he is, exposed--- a room full of other traitors, who by the way nearly all Americans have come to see as puppets anyway.
And we can’t help but notice how little attention is being paid to paint them with that brush at all, except perhaps with a vanishing airbrush so they match the background of outrage directed at just Snowden (instead of including them) and disappearing in plain sight.
May you speak up about this false dichotomy and narrative before the conflation, discrediting and obfuscation take firm root in the public mind to the point where they no longer see a room full of traitors outed by another.
It’s not about Snowden.
It’s about who and what Snowden exposed, and the power it has to silence anyone and extract their cooperation, regardless of their station or office.
It's about the other traitors still in the room.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Sean Hannity Displays Hypocrisy On NSA Surveillance (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/sean-hannity-nsa_n_3431346.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular


Sean Hannity sure has changed his tune.
The rambunctious Fox News host on Monday lashed into the Obama administration over the revelations of widespread Internet and phone surveillance by the National Security Agency, warning that "anarchy and tyranny will follow."
But back in 2006, when a similar NSA spying scandal was unearthed during President George W. Bush's administration, Hannity wasn't so concerned. He came out as a staunch defender of the NSA then, saying it was "staggering to me we are even debating the use of these techniques in this country even at this time."
Media Matters put together a mashup of Hannity's comments, comparing his position then and now.