Showing posts with label Spying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spying. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
The Consummate Liar Strikes Again
Obama's lies have become so blatant that even a person who is totally apathetic and ignorant of politics must be able to detect them... at least, I would think so. Following are just a few of his latest attempts at deception. Feel free to laugh, cry, or sigh... or cuss.
1. Regarding the Obama-Osama story, the Administration claims there are too many assertions by Hersh to respond to any of them. What a cop-out. So much for accountability. Obama, through spokesmen, claims the whole Hersh story is false; we are supposed to simply accept their word. Personally, given the President's record, I would believe Sy Hersh over Barack Obama any day of the century.
2. Regarding his support for the TPP---
Obama claims he fought hard for banking regulations after the 2008 Crisis, so "Why would I sign something that rolls back those protections?". His implication is that parts of the TPP do not roll back protections against crooked mega bankers. That's a bald-faced lie. In addition, the regulations he supported back when were nothing but window-dressing. Finally, he signed the fairly recent omnibus spending bill that included an Amendment written by Citi-Group lobbyists which did roll back the paltry protections of Dodd-Frank. Obama must believe that we have the shortest memories in the history of Humanity... or, he simply doesn't give a damn about what we think... or???
3. Obama continues to claim that NSA dragnet, bulk collection of our records (phone, email, other internet use, credit cards) is legal. Just the other day, a Fed Appeals Court vigorously disagreed and called the bulk collection "unprecedented and unwarranted". The Court went on to say that the Executive Branch doesn't even pretend that such collection is related to any "specific, defined inquiry". All that makes the whole business a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Given his Constitutional Law education, Obama must know that.
4. Obama lies by omission. Not long ago, he stated that "No one is listening to your phone calls.". He left out this: one of the Snowden documents revealed that calls are being recorded automatically, and that the NSA has the technology to enable a key-word search and then generate a transcript of the conversation. All of this is done by high-speed computers because of the billions of calls involved. So, the end result is the same as if someone were listening to your calls. Even if there were no key-word searches or transcripts, simply recording the numbers of whom we call (without a specific reason or specific warrant to do so) is plainly unconstitutional. Read the Fourth Amendment: the word "effects" surely includes our records. Obama must know that.
....................................................................
Yes, other Presidents have lied and violated the Constitution. That's no legitimate excuse for the current President to do the same. Democrats and Republicans (at the highest levels) both appear to believe that the U.S. Constitution is a Menu... just pick out what you like and discard the rest. These same Democrats and Republicans appear to believe in Legislative Absolutism, a term coined by a Supreme Court Justice, Harlan, in 1901. The term means passing laws that violate the Supreme Law of the Land... such as the misnamed PATRIOT Act. This will all continue until We the People peacefully put a stop to it.
Not just my opinion. Happy Trails
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
The Obama Administration Violates the First Amendment
In an earlier post, I related the story of Frontline's piece, "The United States of Secrets"... truly a MUST-SEE film for anyone who loves Liberty. This past Sunday, 60 Minutes essentially re-told a portion of that same piece in a story entitled, "The War on Leaks". It involves the current case of the NYT reporter, James Risen... a genuine American hero. Risen, as well as Tom Drake and others (independently), revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying-on-Americans scheme of the NSA. In both films, Bush-Obama-Hayden are revealed as the propagandists, deceivers, and violators of the First Amendment that rival anyone in recent memory. [Hayden is the guy who, at the behest of Dick Cheney, came up with a plan to spy on Americans that exceeded the Executive's authority. They knew it was illegal, but didn't care.]
Relative to all this, here's how the highest levels of an Outlaw Fed Gov't operate: they concoct and execute a completely unconstitutional, secret plan to spy---without proper warrants---on citizens of their own country, and then, when the scheme is exposed, they criminalize & prosecute the whistleblowers. They make it illegal to expose the illegality of the Govt's actions. Perfect...for them. On top of that, We the People have to endure the wishy-washy, sleazy, weak-minded propaganda "justifying" it all... put out by the puppets of the Oligarchy. Michael Hayden, former Head Honcho of the CIA & the NSA, is the worst example. On second thought, Barack Obama may be the worst example... he has pursued and prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. That's according to 60 Minutes. This is the guy who said he would protect whistleblowers. [When Obama starts talking, about 50% of the time he's lying... and if you look carefully, you can see it in his eyes.] Dubya Bush started the case involving James Risen, and Obama is pursuing it vigorously. The propaganda from both Bush & Obama surpasses that even of Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton.
A Free Press is (or should be) inviolate in this country. It really is our primary protection from corruption in government and loss of freedom. Unfortunately, our present Fed Executive---like the one immediately before him---is waging an unprecedented war on journalism. The case against James Risen is a prime example of that, as was the pursuance of Tom Drake.
I suspect that some people , perhaps many, feel there's nothing we can do about any of this. That's simply not true. It's not a question of "can we", it's one of "will we". Though we live in a soft Fascist State, we still have considerable freedoms; plus, even in a dictatorship, public opinion matters.
The solution will not be found in "voting". It should be obvious by now that these politicians essentially are all the same; they are selected, groomed, and financed by the Oligarchy. Obama is a prime example. [The very, very few who aren't puppets quickly are demonized and/or marginalized and/or eliminated by the Political Machine & the Corporate Media.] No, "voting" is not the answer; it might be someday, but not now. Ballot-access laws (among others) will have to be changed first... an almost impossible task. Peaceful, nonviolent expression and/or protest and/or boycott is the way to have an impact.
As Henry David Thoreau wrote, "Let your life be a counter-friction to the Machine.". That can be done in many ways, not just by marching in the streets. It can be done individually or in groups organized around just causes... or both. It can be done by speaking up (and out) in encounters with Institutionalists, in conversations with anyone, in Art (including Street Art), in music, in boycotts, in writing... in all kinds of peaceful actions. Use your imagination. When the Pulse of the People is overwhelming enough, even Oligarchs pay attention.
Not just my opinion. Be Well
Saturday, May 24, 2014
The Deceivers Bush & Obama, and an American Patriot, Tom Drake
The primary source for this essay is the current piece on PBS Frontline titled, "The United States of Secrets". It's the best, most detailed rendition that I've seen of how-why-where-when the Fed Gov't launched (via the NSA) its unconstitutional (& thus illegal), warrantless program of mass surveillance of Americans. It also includes many interview clips with several people formerly in the Gov't who attempted to expose what the NSA called "The Program". They tried first through proper Gov't channels, and when they were ignored, one of them became a whistleblower. That was Tom Drake.
Mr. Drake was a dedicated NSA senior executive. So was Mr. Edward Loomis... and there were some others... William Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe, etc. They were appalled at what the Fed Gov't was undertaking. Before getting into that, though, let's back up a bit.
The Program was conceived immediately after 9-11. Michael Hayden, the Head of the NSA, was told by Bush-Cheney to come up with a Program to prevent another 9-11 attack. Essentially he also was told to include tools that currently were not allowed by the Constitution or various Statutes. He set to work doing exactly that. It turns out that there was a program in existence prior to 9-11 that could monitor just about anyone..."ThinThread". It had automatic, electronic"privacy protections" for American citizens. The NSA stripped out those protections, thus ensuring that when The Program eventually was used, it violated the Fourth Amendment. The justification by various Executive Branch, political appointee, puppet lawyers for its use was the Article 2 (of the Constitution) phrase, "Commander-in-Chief". [Luckily, not being an attorney, I have some common sense and realize that the phrase cited does not negate other parts of the Constitution. I think most non-puppet people know the same thing.] By the summer of 2002, The Program was in full swing... doing something that never before had been allowed--- surveilling (without a proper warrant) American citizens, our phone calls, emails, financial transactions, credit card use, etc. Literally TRILLIONS of individual bits of data.
Drake and the others were kept out of the secret loop at the NSA regarding The Program, but eventually it was leaked to them that their ThinThread Program had been altered and was being used in an illegal manner. In addition, the major phone companies in the USA were turning over customer phone call records to the NSA. Apparently, these words from the Fourth Amendment are not understood by the Executive Branch: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, PAPERS, and EFFECTS..." (emphasis added). [In actual fact, I believe those words are understood by the Feds; they had/have another agenda--- expansion of Power in the U.S. World Domination Game, what Brzezinski once called "American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives". From their perspective, 9-11 was a fortuitous excuse to run amok.]
Bill Binney, getting nowhere in the NSA with his concerns met with Diane Ruark, a top Congressional Staffer with 17 years of experience in the Intelligence field. A "Conservative" Republican, Ruark nonetheless was extremely concerned that the NSA had "gone rogue". She launched a campaign to inform Congress. Of course, by then it was too late--- the White House already had brought Congress on board. Oversight of the NSA was basically dead. Porter Goss was Ruark's boss; he sent her to Michael Hayden, NSA Head. He basically evaded her questions, but in a politically incorrect manner, she persisted. Finally he essentially told her to mind her own business because he had authority for The Program from the highest level (the "Commander-in-Chief"). Keep in mind that she was on the Congressional Committee for Intelligence OVERSIGHT. Checks and Balances in our Gov't, for all intents and purposes, were gone.
A few attorneys in the Executive Branch opposed The Program due to its unconstitutionality. They basically were thrown under the bus, so to speak. The Program grew, despite the fact that the Justice Dept. determined part of it to be illegal. Because I don't have the time for all the essential details, I highly recommend that people watch the Frontline piece. It is a feature-length film, but fascinating and well worth the watch.
Eventually, some knowledge of The Program reached the public. Bush and Hayden were pretty much forced to say something publicly. Both were deceitful; only a tiny part of the operation was justified... the part dealing with specific terrorist suspects. The public was propagandized. Bush eventually lied about warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans by an agency forbidden to spy on Americans. A couple of dissidents in the Gov't attempted to get the story published in the New York Times. Despite what the Right Wing in the USA thinks, the Times often kow-tows to the Feds. They did.
A year later, a reporter essentially forced (see the film) the Times to reconsider. Bush and Hayden tried to intervene; they were unsuccessful. The story was published in December, 2005. It "shocked the world", according to one commentator. Bush again went public and again was deceitful about The Program; nothing was said about monitoring trillions of emails, phone calls, etc. Hayden lied, saying, "Not a single employee of the NSA has expressed any concerns about...blah-blah-blah.". [Hayden is known as a masterful propagandist... evasive, deceitful, and totally loyal to the Institution.]
Enter Tom Drake. After four years of exhausting all in-house means of expressing concern, he contacted The Baltimore Sun and blew the whistle...anonymously. All the documents he used were UNCLASSIFIED. USA Today published another leak from a different whistleblower. The Times came out with another story. Cheney went crazy, that is, crazier than his usual. He was determined to stop the leakers (of unclassified info). A massive manhunt was launched by the FBI and it was led by Alberto Gonzales, former White House Counsel and then currently the Attorney General. Long story short, the FBI raided the homes of several people (Binney, Wiebe, Ruark, Loomis, etc., pretty much destroying their careers), but found nothing. They finally, six months later, got around to the home of Tom Drake. They seized a trove of UNCLASSIFIED documents, and he was charged under the Espionage Act. He faced possibly life in prison... for exposing Gov't unlawfulness. The seized documents were altered... "unclassified" was crossed out and they were marked "secret".
As the investigation proceeded, the Govt's cases began to fall apart. In 2008, enter Barack Obama. "No more secrecy!" Another quote: "The most transparent government [what his Administration, if elected, will be]". "Whistleblowers are good for government; they will be protected by my Administration [if elected]." "No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens [if elected]." Obama becomes President. He continues The Program. Prior to that, though, Bush reverses himself and decides he needs Congress to make The Program permanent. His Administration pushes through an Amendment to the FISA law. He claims it's "reform", but Intelligence insiders know that it gives the NSA unprecedented powers. The Program is expanded, made worse from the standpoint of the Constitution. The Amendment Bill had to be read extremely closely in order to figure out exactly what it said. Insiders expressed the opinion that Congress had little clue as to what the Bill really said. [Even if they had understood it, politicians seem to count on Americans being unaware of the fact that no law supercedes the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment cannot be negated by any Act of Congress.]
Senator Obama supported the Amendment. So even before he was elected President, the public should have had a clue that he was, at the very least, insincere in his campaign rhetoric concerning wiretapping (with no probable cause) of Americans. At most, he was lying.
President Obama's Administration continued the case against Tom Drake. So much for protection of whistleblowers. Drake's career was over, his finances were decimated (because of legal defense expense), his life more or less trashed. To get the whole thing over with, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor (they never had any espionage case) and received a minor fine and community service.
The Program continues to this day... a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, and "justified" by a law. In the bizarro world of DC, apparently laws do supercede the Supreme Law of the Land. Amazing.
Who cares? Why is any of this important to Americans, especially non-political Americans. Here's one reason why: the whole scenario is Soft Fascism. It violates our Constitution and our Rights. It has been implemented by both major political parties, and there's little reason to believe that more of our Rights won't be trashed down the line somewhere. As Lord Acton said long ago, "Power corrupts, and...".
Finally, our Gov't is doing this worldwide. Particular Snowden documents have revealed that the NSA is even spying on the economic meetings of our allies. That has nothing at all to do with terrorism. We're losing any reputation we ever had as a great nation. Worse, our Govt's NeoImperialistic methods are making enemies of people who once admired our country. In their attempts to dominate the world, our Gov't is over-reaching... not only making enemies, but bankrupting us in the process.
I hope many of you watch the Frontline piece. The content should inform and disturb you. In any case, I salute Tom Drake and the other people in the film who tried, at great personal cost, to wake up both Congress and the public to our Govt's grossly unlawful activities. Kudos to you all. The same praise goes to Edward Snowden. His story is in Part Two of the film.
Be Well
Mr. Drake was a dedicated NSA senior executive. So was Mr. Edward Loomis... and there were some others... William Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe, etc. They were appalled at what the Fed Gov't was undertaking. Before getting into that, though, let's back up a bit.
The Program was conceived immediately after 9-11. Michael Hayden, the Head of the NSA, was told by Bush-Cheney to come up with a Program to prevent another 9-11 attack. Essentially he also was told to include tools that currently were not allowed by the Constitution or various Statutes. He set to work doing exactly that. It turns out that there was a program in existence prior to 9-11 that could monitor just about anyone..."ThinThread". It had automatic, electronic"privacy protections" for American citizens. The NSA stripped out those protections, thus ensuring that when The Program eventually was used, it violated the Fourth Amendment. The justification by various Executive Branch, political appointee, puppet lawyers for its use was the Article 2 (of the Constitution) phrase, "Commander-in-Chief". [Luckily, not being an attorney, I have some common sense and realize that the phrase cited does not negate other parts of the Constitution. I think most non-puppet people know the same thing.] By the summer of 2002, The Program was in full swing... doing something that never before had been allowed--- surveilling (without a proper warrant) American citizens, our phone calls, emails, financial transactions, credit card use, etc. Literally TRILLIONS of individual bits of data.
Drake and the others were kept out of the secret loop at the NSA regarding The Program, but eventually it was leaked to them that their ThinThread Program had been altered and was being used in an illegal manner. In addition, the major phone companies in the USA were turning over customer phone call records to the NSA. Apparently, these words from the Fourth Amendment are not understood by the Executive Branch: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, PAPERS, and EFFECTS..." (emphasis added). [In actual fact, I believe those words are understood by the Feds; they had/have another agenda--- expansion of Power in the U.S. World Domination Game, what Brzezinski once called "American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives". From their perspective, 9-11 was a fortuitous excuse to run amok.]
Bill Binney, getting nowhere in the NSA with his concerns met with Diane Ruark, a top Congressional Staffer with 17 years of experience in the Intelligence field. A "Conservative" Republican, Ruark nonetheless was extremely concerned that the NSA had "gone rogue". She launched a campaign to inform Congress. Of course, by then it was too late--- the White House already had brought Congress on board. Oversight of the NSA was basically dead. Porter Goss was Ruark's boss; he sent her to Michael Hayden, NSA Head. He basically evaded her questions, but in a politically incorrect manner, she persisted. Finally he essentially told her to mind her own business because he had authority for The Program from the highest level (the "Commander-in-Chief"). Keep in mind that she was on the Congressional Committee for Intelligence OVERSIGHT. Checks and Balances in our Gov't, for all intents and purposes, were gone.
A few attorneys in the Executive Branch opposed The Program due to its unconstitutionality. They basically were thrown under the bus, so to speak. The Program grew, despite the fact that the Justice Dept. determined part of it to be illegal. Because I don't have the time for all the essential details, I highly recommend that people watch the Frontline piece. It is a feature-length film, but fascinating and well worth the watch.
Eventually, some knowledge of The Program reached the public. Bush and Hayden were pretty much forced to say something publicly. Both were deceitful; only a tiny part of the operation was justified... the part dealing with specific terrorist suspects. The public was propagandized. Bush eventually lied about warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans by an agency forbidden to spy on Americans. A couple of dissidents in the Gov't attempted to get the story published in the New York Times. Despite what the Right Wing in the USA thinks, the Times often kow-tows to the Feds. They did.
A year later, a reporter essentially forced (see the film) the Times to reconsider. Bush and Hayden tried to intervene; they were unsuccessful. The story was published in December, 2005. It "shocked the world", according to one commentator. Bush again went public and again was deceitful about The Program; nothing was said about monitoring trillions of emails, phone calls, etc. Hayden lied, saying, "Not a single employee of the NSA has expressed any concerns about...blah-blah-blah.". [Hayden is known as a masterful propagandist... evasive, deceitful, and totally loyal to the Institution.]
Enter Tom Drake. After four years of exhausting all in-house means of expressing concern, he contacted The Baltimore Sun and blew the whistle...anonymously. All the documents he used were UNCLASSIFIED. USA Today published another leak from a different whistleblower. The Times came out with another story. Cheney went crazy, that is, crazier than his usual. He was determined to stop the leakers (of unclassified info). A massive manhunt was launched by the FBI and it was led by Alberto Gonzales, former White House Counsel and then currently the Attorney General. Long story short, the FBI raided the homes of several people (Binney, Wiebe, Ruark, Loomis, etc., pretty much destroying their careers), but found nothing. They finally, six months later, got around to the home of Tom Drake. They seized a trove of UNCLASSIFIED documents, and he was charged under the Espionage Act. He faced possibly life in prison... for exposing Gov't unlawfulness. The seized documents were altered... "unclassified" was crossed out and they were marked "secret".
As the investigation proceeded, the Govt's cases began to fall apart. In 2008, enter Barack Obama. "No more secrecy!" Another quote: "The most transparent government [what his Administration, if elected, will be]". "Whistleblowers are good for government; they will be protected by my Administration [if elected]." "No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens [if elected]." Obama becomes President. He continues The Program. Prior to that, though, Bush reverses himself and decides he needs Congress to make The Program permanent. His Administration pushes through an Amendment to the FISA law. He claims it's "reform", but Intelligence insiders know that it gives the NSA unprecedented powers. The Program is expanded, made worse from the standpoint of the Constitution. The Amendment Bill had to be read extremely closely in order to figure out exactly what it said. Insiders expressed the opinion that Congress had little clue as to what the Bill really said. [Even if they had understood it, politicians seem to count on Americans being unaware of the fact that no law supercedes the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment cannot be negated by any Act of Congress.]
Senator Obama supported the Amendment. So even before he was elected President, the public should have had a clue that he was, at the very least, insincere in his campaign rhetoric concerning wiretapping (with no probable cause) of Americans. At most, he was lying.
President Obama's Administration continued the case against Tom Drake. So much for protection of whistleblowers. Drake's career was over, his finances were decimated (because of legal defense expense), his life more or less trashed. To get the whole thing over with, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor (they never had any espionage case) and received a minor fine and community service.
The Program continues to this day... a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, and "justified" by a law. In the bizarro world of DC, apparently laws do supercede the Supreme Law of the Land. Amazing.
Who cares? Why is any of this important to Americans, especially non-political Americans. Here's one reason why: the whole scenario is Soft Fascism. It violates our Constitution and our Rights. It has been implemented by both major political parties, and there's little reason to believe that more of our Rights won't be trashed down the line somewhere. As Lord Acton said long ago, "Power corrupts, and...".
Finally, our Gov't is doing this worldwide. Particular Snowden documents have revealed that the NSA is even spying on the economic meetings of our allies. That has nothing at all to do with terrorism. We're losing any reputation we ever had as a great nation. Worse, our Govt's NeoImperialistic methods are making enemies of people who once admired our country. In their attempts to dominate the world, our Gov't is over-reaching... not only making enemies, but bankrupting us in the process.
I hope many of you watch the Frontline piece. The content should inform and disturb you. In any case, I salute Tom Drake and the other people in the film who tried, at great personal cost, to wake up both Congress and the public to our Govt's grossly unlawful activities. Kudos to you all. The same praise goes to Edward Snowden. His story is in Part Two of the film.
Be Well
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
More of the NSA Nightmare
I doubt that you'll hear about this on the prostitute Corporate Media broadcasts. The whistleblower Jacob Appelbaum, speaking at the Chaos Communications Congress in Germany, revealed that the NSA has some sort of radar wave generator gizmo that allows the agency to view any targeted computer keyboard (and monitor). In other words, they can see what the person is typing. So...this should be a good thing relative to the so-called "War on Terror". The problem is: what does a person have to do to be considered a potential terrorist by the Fed Gov't? Answer: not much.
Some of you may be thinking, well, this has nothing to do with me...I would never be considered a potential terrorist. Perhaps the following will change your mind.
1. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 designates our entire country as a battleground in the "War on Terror".
2. The NDAA also gives the President the power to, all by himself, declare a national emergency which suspends presumption of innocence, due process, access to an attorney, and trial by jury. In addition, it gives the President the power to have a potential terrorist executed without a trial...all this in the Land of the Free.
3. Several writers are considered potential terrorists because they exercised the Natural Right of free speech by writing news stories contrary to the Govt's view of whistleblowing.
4. Not long ago, the State of Missouri issued a sort of terrorist bulletin to law enforcement which stated that anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker should be viewed as a "potential terrorist". [That was not an action by the Feds, but it shows what's possible.]
5. Also so designated in that bulletin were "constitutionalists" and "militia members", and anyone associated with them.
6. According to whistleblowers, the NSA considers anyone who visits certain websites to be a potential terrorist. In other words, if you read material not approved, you're a potential terrorist. Worse, anyone associated with you, and anyone associated with them, is considered a potential terrorist.
The Fourth Amendment is deemed by the Fed Gov't to be not relevant to potential terrorists. The same is true of the Fifth (due process) and Sixth (speedy and public trial) Amendments. Guilt by association appears to be more important to the Feds.
I love this country, but the Fed Gov't is not this country. The well respected historian and Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown U., Professor Carroll Quigley, wrote this in 1966, "The tragedy is that we no longer have a representative government in this country [or in any country]; the hope is that the little people will accept that, because there is nothing they can do about it." ~ Quigley, Carroll, Tragedy and Hope, 1966. Quigley considered himself to be one of the Oligarchs, thus he referred to Americans in general as the "little people".
All the Oligarchs, including those at the highest levels of our unrepresentative Fed Gov't, consider all of us to be the little people. We're viewed by the Big Boys & Girls in much the way ranchers view livestock.
Just my opinion.
Some of you may be thinking, well, this has nothing to do with me...I would never be considered a potential terrorist. Perhaps the following will change your mind.
1. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 designates our entire country as a battleground in the "War on Terror".
2. The NDAA also gives the President the power to, all by himself, declare a national emergency which suspends presumption of innocence, due process, access to an attorney, and trial by jury. In addition, it gives the President the power to have a potential terrorist executed without a trial...all this in the Land of the Free.
3. Several writers are considered potential terrorists because they exercised the Natural Right of free speech by writing news stories contrary to the Govt's view of whistleblowing.
4. Not long ago, the State of Missouri issued a sort of terrorist bulletin to law enforcement which stated that anyone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker should be viewed as a "potential terrorist". [That was not an action by the Feds, but it shows what's possible.]
5. Also so designated in that bulletin were "constitutionalists" and "militia members", and anyone associated with them.
6. According to whistleblowers, the NSA considers anyone who visits certain websites to be a potential terrorist. In other words, if you read material not approved, you're a potential terrorist. Worse, anyone associated with you, and anyone associated with them, is considered a potential terrorist.
The Fourth Amendment is deemed by the Fed Gov't to be not relevant to potential terrorists. The same is true of the Fifth (due process) and Sixth (speedy and public trial) Amendments. Guilt by association appears to be more important to the Feds.
I love this country, but the Fed Gov't is not this country. The well respected historian and Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown U., Professor Carroll Quigley, wrote this in 1966, "The tragedy is that we no longer have a representative government in this country [or in any country]; the hope is that the little people will accept that, because there is nothing they can do about it." ~ Quigley, Carroll, Tragedy and Hope, 1966. Quigley considered himself to be one of the Oligarchs, thus he referred to Americans in general as the "little people".
All the Oligarchs, including those at the highest levels of our unrepresentative Fed Gov't, consider all of us to be the little people. We're viewed by the Big Boys & Girls in much the way ranchers view livestock.
Just my opinion.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Whistleblowers Are Patriots
Patriots, if they can, expose government wrongdoing. The hypocrisy of those in the upper levels of our Outlaw Fed Gov't is beyond the pale. If China, or Israel, or Russia, or any other country spies on us, the Feds go bananas; but when our Gov't spies on our own allies, oh, there's nothing wrong with that. The National Security State trumps any concept of Right and Wrong...and the Natural Rights that all humans possess.
In case you haven't heard, and as reported in Der Spiegel, the NSA has an elite computer hacking unit that has been remotely installing spyware and malware on computers using the Windows Operating System. Not only that, it has been intercepting the delivery of new computers ordered online, installing spyware, and then sending the machines on their way. This illegal process also includes cell phones. The existence of the hacking unit, Tailored Access Operations (TAO), was revealed in documents sent by Edward Snowden to Der Spiegel.
Judge Pauley, who contradicted another Fed Judge who said the NSA's phone records collection was "almost Orwellian", in a very real sense claims that if the NSA does it to everyone, then that's constitutional. Please, is he serious?! Judges have been throwing out court cases because the individuals bringing suit don't know for certain if their records are being collected...they have no "standing". It's clear to me that the Judicial System, in a very large part, is not independent of the Political System. That's called corruption. Read the Fourth Amendment; what the NSA is doing is blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, we can't even rely on the Supreme Court to be totally independent...remember the Kelo v. City of New London case? The City seized private property using Eminent Domain and sold it to PRIVATE developers, claiming that the taxes to be generated qualified as "public use" of the property. If that's true, then anyone's property can be seized under the guise of Eminent Domain, and the seizure doesn't have to be for a public road or public building, etc. Where is the common sense in that? The same is true for Judge Pauley's opinion that as long as the NSA does it to everyone, that's constitutional. Have mercy.
If you look at History, you'll see that the Govt's response to Whistleblowers is to smear and criminalize them. The U.K. is as bad as the U.S.A. in that regard. Ask Glenn Greenwald, who now lives in Brazil. He's wary of returning to England because he's being investigated for "terrorism". Terrorism is the great catch-all now for governments. Constitutions can be ignored, Natural Rights can be ignored, due process can be ignored...just label the person a potential terrorist. In this country, because of the NDAA, such a person can be executed without a trial (according to an article in Forbes, & many other sources). When he signed that bill into law, Obama said, "I would never do that.", or something to that effect. Well, guess what? I'm not reassured. History shows us that no politician, present or future, is to be trusted.
Just my opinion.
In case you haven't heard, and as reported in Der Spiegel, the NSA has an elite computer hacking unit that has been remotely installing spyware and malware on computers using the Windows Operating System. Not only that, it has been intercepting the delivery of new computers ordered online, installing spyware, and then sending the machines on their way. This illegal process also includes cell phones. The existence of the hacking unit, Tailored Access Operations (TAO), was revealed in documents sent by Edward Snowden to Der Spiegel.
Judge Pauley, who contradicted another Fed Judge who said the NSA's phone records collection was "almost Orwellian", in a very real sense claims that if the NSA does it to everyone, then that's constitutional. Please, is he serious?! Judges have been throwing out court cases because the individuals bringing suit don't know for certain if their records are being collected...they have no "standing". It's clear to me that the Judicial System, in a very large part, is not independent of the Political System. That's called corruption. Read the Fourth Amendment; what the NSA is doing is blatantly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, we can't even rely on the Supreme Court to be totally independent...remember the Kelo v. City of New London case? The City seized private property using Eminent Domain and sold it to PRIVATE developers, claiming that the taxes to be generated qualified as "public use" of the property. If that's true, then anyone's property can be seized under the guise of Eminent Domain, and the seizure doesn't have to be for a public road or public building, etc. Where is the common sense in that? The same is true for Judge Pauley's opinion that as long as the NSA does it to everyone, that's constitutional. Have mercy.
If you look at History, you'll see that the Govt's response to Whistleblowers is to smear and criminalize them. The U.K. is as bad as the U.S.A. in that regard. Ask Glenn Greenwald, who now lives in Brazil. He's wary of returning to England because he's being investigated for "terrorism". Terrorism is the great catch-all now for governments. Constitutions can be ignored, Natural Rights can be ignored, due process can be ignored...just label the person a potential terrorist. In this country, because of the NDAA, such a person can be executed without a trial (according to an article in Forbes, & many other sources). When he signed that bill into law, Obama said, "I would never do that.", or something to that effect. Well, guess what? I'm not reassured. History shows us that no politician, present or future, is to be trusted.
Just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)