Tag: surveillance

Liberal Fascism: From Bengazigate to Obamagate, Dr. Susan Rice Kissed…Well, You Know…and Took Names For Her President

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Yousef Al Otaiba, Susan Rice

How far would those involved in a Liberal Fascist Government go in order to secure the Presidency for their Political Party’s Presidential Candidate?

Adam Housely of Fox News reported yesterday that

Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office. 

It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday. 

“What I know is this …  If the intelligence community professionals decide that there’s some value, national security, foreign policy or otherwise in unmasking someone, they will grant those requests,” former Obama State Department spokeswoman and Fox News contributor Marie Harf told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days. “And we have seen no evidence … that there was partisan political notice behind this and we can’t say that unless there’s actual evidence to back that up.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked about the revelations at Monday’s briefing, declined to comment specifically on what role Rice may have played or officials’ motives.

“I’m not going to comment on this any further until [congressional] committees have come to a conclusion,” he said, while contrasting the media’s alleged “lack” of interest in these revelations with the intense coverage of suspected Trump-Russia links. 

When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not.

This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas’ television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Meanwhile, Fox News also is told that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes knew about unmasking and leaking back in January, well before President Trump’s tweet in March alleging wiretapping.

Nunes has faced criticism from Democrats for viewing pertinent documents on White House grounds and announcing their contents to the press. But sources said “the intelligence agencies slow-rolled Nunes. He could have seen the logs at other places besides the White House SCIF [secure facility], but it had already been a few weeks. So he went to the White House because he could protect his sources and he could get to the logs.”

As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.

Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration’s later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and that he “wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”

Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.

At one time, Dr. Susan Rice was being considered to succeed Hillary Clinton as Obama’s Secretary of State. Fearing the intense scrutiny of her conduct during the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. Embassy Compound in Benghazi,. Libya, in which four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stephens were slaughtered by Radical Islamists, that she would face if selected by Obama for that position, she withdrew from consideration, writing the following in a letter to President Obama…

When discussing Benghazi, I relied on fully cleared, unclassified points provided by the intelligence community, which encapsulated their best current assessment. These unclassified points were consistent with the classified assessments I received as a senior policymaker. It would have been irresponsible for me to substitute any personal judgment for our government’s and wrong to reveal classified material. I made clear in each interview that the information I was providing was preliminary and that ongoing investigations would give us definitive answers. I have tremendous appreciation for our intelligence professionals, who work hard to provide their best assessments based on the information available. Long experience shows that our first accounts of terrorist attacks and other tragedies often evolve over time. The intelligence community did its job in good faith. And so did I.

I have never sought in any way, shape or form to mislead the American people. To do so would run counter to my character and my life of public service. But in recent weeks, new lines of attack have been raised to malign my character and my career. Even before I was nominated for any new position, a steady drip of manufactured charges painted a wholly false picture of me. This has interfered increasingly with my work on behalf of the United States at the United Nations and with America’s agenda.

I grew up in Washington, D.C., and I’ve seen plenty of battles over politics and policy. But a national security appointment, much less a potential one, should never be turned into a political football. There are far bigger issues at stake. So I concluded this distraction has to stop.

Translation: “Not only were they going to make me tell the truth about Benghazi, they would also find out my history of being a Muslim sympathizer.”

While Dr. Rice was working at the Brookings Institute, she co-authored a paper published in 2005, titled Can “Freedom Only” Secure Our Future? In this paper, she wrote,

…Some scholars argue that the absence of political freedoms, rather than lack of educational opportunity, motivate young men to join terrorist networks.

…Others hold that poverty and under-development create breeding grounds for terrorist foot soldiers.

…More significant is poverty’s contribution to fueling civil conflict and state weakness that terrorist networks and other predators can exploit.

…Absent conflict, low levels of income and development, particularly in countries with significant, but not necessarily majority Muslim populations may also facilitate terrorist operations.

…Promoting both development and democracy in faraway countries is a 21st century security imperative. We need a dual strategy. We must combine effective formulas for fostering freedom through building civil society and transparent democratic institutions with a determination to “make poverty history”.

Please note the irony of a woman advocating for civility and transparency who has proven, through her actions after the Benghazi Massacre and now, in the wake of her involvement in spying on the Presidential Candidate and Campaign Staff of the opposite political party under the auspices of a sitting President, to be anything but “Civil” and “transparent”.

The thing is, as Rush Limbaugh noted on his program yesterday,

This story is not Trump and the Russians.  I’m sorry to be so repetitive.  The story is the surveillance that the Obama administration was engaging in of Trump and who knows who else.  Now, you say, “Rush, this is awfully hard to believe.”  No, it isn’t.  This is my point about liberals and who they are.  They weaponized the IRS against conservatives, didn’t they?  They most certainly did.

They have done any number of things, take over police departments on the basis that they’re racist after things like what happened in Ferguson or in Baltimore.  The idea that people who are closely associated with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn would not surveil their enemies. It’s much easier to believe that it would happen.  This is why liberals want power.  This is the kind of thing they want to be able to do with it. 

Per usual, Rush is right.

For any American who has been paying attention, Obama’s surveillance of Trump and his Campaign Staff is not shocking at all.

It is simply a continuation of a pattern of behavior associated with the political ideology of the Former President and his Administration.

When Barack Hussein Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the Far Left became empowered. Obama’s handlers saw the opportunity to “radically change” America into a Democratic Socialist Republic. You know, the kind of government that is currently failing over in Europe.

Every piece of legislation that Barack Hussein Obama tried to get passed, was designed to either overtly or covertly limit our freedom.

Boys and Girls, it was not just “Chicago-style Politics” that motivated Obama to spy on the Trump Campaign. It was his predilection toward Government-sponsored FASCISM.

My late father was one of thousands of brave young American men, who landed on the beaches of Normandy , France on June 6, 1944, in the military operation which broke the backs of the Nazis, leading to the end of World War II, now known as D-Day.

World War II was in a war against Fascism.

What is Fascism? Per merriam-webster.com, it is a

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that America has been fighting a new War Against Fascism for some time now.

It has not been a war fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, Law Suits, Judicial Activism and Royal Edicts from the Far Left and their leaders like the Former King Barack The First.

It’s not our Brightest and Best who have been wounded on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which have been attacked, pierced by the arrows of Socialism and Political Correctness.

By now, there is someone out there among you saying, “Oh Lord, the crazy old cracker’s overreacting again.”

No, Skippy, I’m not.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that all this garbage that happened during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama was “the will of the people”. In order to prove their claim, they will site Democratically-stacked push polls from those years or place Hollywood Liberals in front of a camera, so they can mindlessly pontificate and tell us “common folk” what we should do.

If there is “no Fascism”, what do you call Obama’s suggestions and actions to suppress the First Amendment Rights to Free Speech of  Americans, who disagreed with the Liberal “Politically Correct” Point of View, up to and including the surveillance of and subsequent purposeful “unmasking ” of the Trump Campaign Staff?

Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Drones…Death By Remote Control: Obama: “I’m Really Good at Killing People.”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

obamakingOn January 20, 2009. newly elected United States President Barack Hussein Obama, said the following,

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes,

On January 21, 2013, newly re-elected United States President Barack Hussein Obama, said the following,

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends — and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully –- not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.

On May 29, 2012, The New York Times, in an article about Obama’s Drone Strike Counterterrorism Campaign, titled “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will”, opined that

Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.

They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

His first term has seen private warnings from top officials about a “Whac-A-Mole” approach to counterterrorism; the invention of a new category of aerial attack following complaints of careless targeting; and presidential acquiescence in a formula for counting civilian deaths that some officials think is skewed to produce low numbers.

Everyone’s concern about Obama’s used of Drone Strikes, has been well-founded.

The local CBS Affiliate, in Washington, DC, reported yesterday, that,

Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s book “Double Down: Game Change 2012” notes President Obama commenting on drone strikes, reportedly telling his aides that he’s “really good at killing people.”

The quote from the book was first reported in Peter Hamby’s review in the Washington Post.

The White House had not officially commented on the alleged remarks, but senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer dismissed a series of reports from the book, including one that showed Obama campaign officials deciding whether to replace Vice President Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton.

“The president is always frustrated about leaks,” Pfeiffer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “I haven’t talked to him about this book. I haven’t read it. He hasn’t read it. But he hates leaks.”

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that a total of 2,528-3,648 people have been killed by CIA drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, and between 416-948 of them being civilians. The group labels 326 of such events as “Obama strikes.”

President Obama has taken considerable criticism for the expansion of the CIA targeted killing program – especially from the man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

FoxNews.com reported on May 14th, 2012,

Unmanned drones could soon be buzzing in the skies above many U.S. cities, as the federal government green-lights the technology for local law enforcement amid widespread privacy concerns.

The Federal Aviation Administration on Monday began to explain the rules of the sky for these newly licensed drones at potentially dozens of sites across the country. The agency, on its website, said that government “entities” will have to obtain a special certificate in order to fly the aircraft, adding that the FAA is “streamlining the process for public agencies to safely fly (drones) in the nation’s airspace.”

In doing so, the government is taking a tool that has become synonymous with U.S. counterterror warfare in countries like Pakistan and Yemen — and putting it in the hands of U.S. law enforcement.

Unlike some of the drones used overseas, these will not be equipped with missiles. They are to be used purely for surveillance. But that alone has raised serious privacy concerns on Capitol Hill and beyond.

How long until these proposed Domestic Drones are also armed?

By lining up all of these stories, I hoped to paint a very dangerous picture…of a United States President, who publicly proclaimed that he rejested “as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”, while in the privacy of the Oval Office, brags about his ability to kill people by remote control, in a scenario like playing a video game, except the target for assassination does not get any “extra lives”.

In 1985, a movie titled “Real Genius” came out. Starring Val Kilmer, the movie concerned a group of child prodigies at a University, who were all given assignments by a Professor, who unbeknownst to them, was working for the Federal Government. These assignments were all parts of a project: a Space Shuttle, equipped with a Conjugate Tracking System, designed to fire a laser from Earth’s orbit, which would vaporize its target, be it a foreign leader, or a domestic troublemaker.

The students, once they figured out what was going on, sabotaged the testing of the firing system, stopping the weapon, before it had a chance to be used.

Back then, everybody thought that movie was pretty far-fetched.

Now, 28 years later, “Death By Remote Control” is a reality.

And, we have a president who says that he’s “really good at it”.

Somehow, I don’t think that is an attribute that his favorite President, Abraham Lincoln, would be proud of.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Operation Prism: He Knows When You’ve Been Bad or Good…or Vote Democrat.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

ObamalyingThis week, Americans have found out that their President authorized unlimited surveillance on innocent citizens, gathering data from our cell phones, credit cards, and computers, both at home and at work.

And, according to someone who would know, we ain’t seen nothing, yet:

The National Security Agency’s collection of phone data from all of Verizon’s U.S. customers is just the “tip of the iceberg,” says a former NSA official who estimates the agency has data on as many as 20 trillion phone calls and emails by U.S. citizens.

William Binney, an award-winning mathematician and noted NSA whistleblower, says the collection dates back to when the super-secret agency began domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“I believe they’ve been collecting data about all domestic calls since October 2001,” said Mr. Binney, who worked at NSA for more than 30 years. “That’s more than a billion calls a day.”

He called his figures “back of the envelope” estimates, adding that they include emails as well as telephone calls.

Marc Ambinder, writing for The Week, posted the following information in an article published June 6th:

Analysts at the National Security Agency can now secretly access real-time user data provided by as many as 50 American companies, ranging from credit rating agencies to internet service providers, two government officials familiar with the arrangements said.

Several of the companies have provided records continuously since 2006, while others have given the agency sporadic access, these officials said. These officials disclosed the number of participating companies in order to provide context for a series of disclosures about the NSA’s domestic collection policies. The officials, contacted independently, repeatedly said that “domestic collection” does not mean that the target is based in the U.S. or is a U.S. citizen; rather, it refers only to the origin of the data.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that U.S. credit card companies had also provided customer information. The officials would not disclose the names of the companies because, they said, doing so would provide U.S. enemies with a list of companies to avoid. They declined to confirm the list of participants in an internet monitoring program revealed by the Washington Post and the Guardian, but both confirmed that the program existed.

“The idea is to create a mosaic. We get a tip. We vet it. Then we mine the data for intelligence,” one of the officials said.

…It is not clear how the NSA interfaces with the companies. It cannot use standard law enforcement transmission channels to do, since most use data protocols that are not compatible with that hardware. Several of the companies mentioned in the Post report deny granting access to the NSA, although it is possible that they are lying, or that the NSA’s arrangements with the company are kept so tightly compartmentalized that very few people know about it. Those who do probably have security clearances and are bound by law not to reveal the arrangement.

This arrangement allows the U.S. companies to “stay out of the intelligence business,” one of the officials said. That is, the government bears the responsibility for determining what’s relevant, and the company can plausibly deny that it subjected any particular customer to unlawful government surveillance. Previously, Congressional authors of the FAA said that such a “get out of jail free” card was insisted by corporations after a wave of lawsuits revealed the extent of their cooperation with the government.

It is possible, but not likely, that the NSA clandestinely burrows into servers on American soil, without the knowledge of the company in question, although that would be illegal.

The 2008 FISA Amendments Act allow the NSA to analyze, with court orders, domestic communications of all types for counter-terrorism, counter-espionage, counter-narcotics and counter-proliferation purposes. If the agency believes that both ends of the communication, or the circle of those communicating, are wholly within the U.S., the FBI takes over. If one end of the conversation is outside the U.S., the NSA keeps control of the monitoring. An administration official said that such monitoring is subject to “extensive procedures,”but as the Washington Post reported, however, it is often very difficult to segregate U.S. citizens and residents from incidental contact.

Uh huh. And, if you believe that, you also believe that Obama learned about all these scandals which have broken in the last few weeks, when we did.

Back on February 6th, 2013, Breitbart.com featured this interesting quote from the absolutely corrupt Liberal House Member Maxine Waters:

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday. “That’s going to be very, very powerful,” Waters said. “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.” (h/t mark81150)

Bazinga.

According to The Godfather of Conservative Talk Shows, Rush Limbaugh, what we’re witnessing is a coup:

…Herb Meyer was the first to sound this notice some months ago. I also mentioned he wrote a piece that currently is in the American Thinker earlier this week, and it had the potential to be controversial because he used Adolf Hitler and Nazism in it, and it was his way of explaining, he made a point in the piece that nowhere, you know, people looking for a smoking gun to nail Obama on all these scandals, Herb says, “Ain’t gonna be one.”

He said whether you believe it or not, there is not one document linking Adolf Hitler to the holocaust. Adolf Hitler never put it on paper what he intended to do. There is no smoking gun. And yet what happened? We know that the Nazis engaged in the Holocaust. Herb Meyer’s point was that the people Hitler hired didn’t have to be told. They didn’t have to be given instructions. All they had to do was listen to what Hitler was saying. All they had to do was listen to what his objectives were. And he said the same thing’s happening here with this administration. He went to great pains to say: I’m not calling this administration a bunch of Nazis. I’m just using this as an illustration. I know people will get my point if I use something this notorious, the Nazi regime.

It’s a point that I’ve made here about the IRS. They say, “Well, you can’t link it in to Obama.” You don’t need to link Obama to it. He hired these people. Lois Lerner and everybody at the IRS who’s doing this is doing everything they can to please Obama. There’s not gonna be a smoking gun, but you don’t need a smoking gun to know where this administration’s doing what it’s doing.

Obama puts people in positions that mirror him. Eric Holder, you name it, they’re doing Obama’s bidding. Everybody. Susan Rice and Samantha Power, they are Obama, and there’s a context for what’s happening. Herbert Meyer, if I may quote him again, asserted that essentially what’s taking place in the United States right now is a coup, not a violent coup, and not a million artistic coup, but nevertheless a takeover of a government, and it’s being done by the Obama administration.

Let’s face it. Obama is nothing but a Community Organizer/Visiting Law lecturer,and Marxist/Alinsky-ite, groomed from an early age by Chicago Politicians and Democratic Powers Brokers to be “clean and articulate”. Financed by George Soros and others, he was built up, a la Nikolai Lenin, to be the savior of the masses, a figurehead, who would “cause the oceans to rise and fall”, “heal the sick, raise the dead, and make the little girls talk out of their heads” (Thank you, Johnny Rivers)…and faint at strategic moments in campaign rallies.

The problem is, the Democrats did not realize exactly how radical Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) was….nor how much of a megalomaniac.

According to insiders, he is a hands-off leader. He sits back and watches while others do the dirty work. After all, you didn’t expect Scooter to let work get in the way of improving his golf game and spending time with his former “body man”, Reggie Love, did you?

And, now, America finds itself governed by an Administration comprised of the same radicals who used to hold sit-ins in College Dean’s offices, utilizing the same Nazi-like methods of intimidation and suppression that they accused the Federal Government of in the 1960s.

That, boys and girls, is called “irony”.

On a final note: What remains curious to me, is with all of these scandals busting wide open, we still have not learned where America’s Commander in Chief was the night  of September 11, 2012, when those 4 Brave Americans were murdered by Muslim Terrorists at the Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Perhaps, he was waiting to hear about it on the nightly news.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Operation PRISM: But…But…Booosh!!!

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

obamaburningconstitutionYesterday, as news of President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration’s dissection of innocent Americans’ Fourth Amendment Rights spread like wildfire across our nation, Liberals could be heard shrieking from coast to coast:

It’s Bush’s fault!!

What they are hysterically referring to, is the fact that, President George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act into law on October 26, 2001. Here are some of his remarks, given at the time:

…As of today, we’re changing the laws governing information-sharing. And as importantly, we’re changing the culture of our various agencies that fight terrorism. Countering and investigating terrorist activity is the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.

As of today, we’ll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology. Investigations are often slowed by limit on the reach of federal search warrants. Law enforcement agencies have to get a new warrant for each new district they investigate, even when they’re after the same suspect.

Under this new law, warrants are valid across all districts and across all states. And, finally, the new legislation greatly enhances the penalties that will fall on terrorists or anyone who helps them. Current statutes deal more severely with drug-traffickers than with terrorists. That changes today.

We are enacting new and harsh penalties for possession of biological weapons. We’re making it easier to seize the assets of groups and individuals involved in terrorism. The government will have wider latitude in deporting known terrorists and their supporters. The statute of limitations on terrorist acts will be lengthened, as will prison sentences for terrorists.

This bill was carefully drafted and considered. Led by the members of Congress on this stage, and those seated in the audience, it was crafted with skill and care, determination and a spirit of bipartisanship for which the entire nation is grateful. This bill met with an overwhelming — overwhelming agreement in Congress, because it upholds and respects the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.

Bi-partisan…hmmmm…doesn’t that mean that both sides of the aisle signed off on the Patriot Act? Why, yes. It does.

Rush Limbaugh dissects the Liberals’ argument even further…

The Bush warrantless wiretaps involved foreign telephone calls. Remember when the left was getting so aggravated over the Bush warrantless wiretaps? They were involving domestic to foreign phone calls and foreign to domestic. The Bush administration was not monitoring domestic phone calls, contrary to what you were told or maybe led to believe. Obama is doing that exact thing. This is every phone call that Verizon handles. Now, they’re telling us, “Don’t worry, it’s just the metadata,” which is the phone numbers of every call, and the length of the call.

“It has nothing about the details of the call, nothing about the content. No, no, no, Mr. Limbaugh! What they’re looking for is spikes. They want to see if a bunch of numbers are called frequently, constantly in large numbers over long periods of time, and then they’ll zero in to find out who was making those calls.” So now what the media is saying along with Obama is, “Hey, this is all to protect you. Don’t sweat it! There nothing to see here. When these kinds of stories have come up about the NSA or phone records in the past under Bush…

This is not collection in the usual spy craft sense of eavesdropping. These phone logs are being used for what’s called “traffic analysis,” metadata. It involves looking for patterns in the data. But the huge number of records is almost certainly unprecedented here, as is the daily monitoring. But here’s the real question: Didn’t Obama tell us that the War on Terror is over? Didn’t he tell us that? (interruption) Yeah, I know we’re not supposed to remember he said that, but, see, I can’t help it; I do.

President Obama was in San Diego yesterday to give a Sales Pitch (disguised as a speech) about Obamacare. Instead, he attempted to answer why he is recording the communications of average American Citizens.

According to Obama,

Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.

They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism.

…The programs that have been discussed over the last couple days in the press are secret in the sense that they’re classified, but they’re not secret in the sense that when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program.

The relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programs. These are programs that have been authorized by broad, bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006. And so I think at the outset, it’s important to understand that your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we’re doing.

One of the things that we’re going to have to discuss and debate is how [we’re]striking this balance between the need to keep the American people safe and our concerns about privacy, because there are some trade-offs involved. And I welcome this debate. And I think it’s healthy for our democracy. I think it’s a sign of maturity.

…It’s important to recognize that you can’t have a hundred percent security and also then have a hundred percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.

…There’s a reason why these programs are classified. There is a suggestion that somehow any classified program is a quote-unquote ‘secret’ program, which means it’s somehow suspicious. But the fact of the matter is, in our modern history there are a whole range of programs that have been classified.

If every step that we’re taking to try to prevent a terrorist act is on the front page of the newspapers or on television, then presumably the people who are trying to do us harm are going to be able to get around our preventive measures. That’s why these things are classified.

Uh huh. And, I suppose that explains your cover ops involving the DOJ, the AP, and Fox News. Or…your shenanigans involving your use of the IRS to sabotage, or, at least slow down Conservative Secular and Religious Organizations, in order to get re-elected.

Excuse Americans, if they don’t quite buy what you’re selling, Scooter. 

On May 23rd of this year, you announced that “The War on Terror is Over” and that

We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘Global War on Terror,’ but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.

Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.  So that’s the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them.

If the threat of Muslim Terrorism has been reduced to “lone wolves” and a “weakened al-Qaeda”, Mr. President, why do you need, as was reported yesterday, to be monitoring billions of phone calls and 15 Internet Servers?

The answer is simple. Just like all the other scandals that have exploded in the last month, your motives are purely political. You are a Chicago Politician and you have brought the shady activities of Chicago Backroom Politics to the Office of the Presidency.

As your sycophants at the New York Times wrote yesterday, 

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.

Fortunately…

The best laid plans of mice and men oft times go awry.

Until He Comes,

KJ