This is not all there is to it:
Wednesday: The Guardian dropped another bomb, revealing a program called XKeyscore, which "allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing e-mails, online chats, and the browsing histories of millions of individuals," as The Guardian learns via Snowden.
The amount of data the program selects is so large that it can only be stored for three or five days; metadata persists for a month.
Look, this is how it works. The government, more so the "intelligence" word smiths, word things in ways that attempt to, and due to the lack of probing questions to reveal otherwise, often do, obfuscate what the government is doing in compartmentalized fashion. Edward Snowden did not have access to everything the government has. Even Barack Obama doesn't have that access. There are units operating within the Deep State that could be said to be completely independent of all oversight. They are led to believe that they are authorized to do illegal things and are told not to divulge it to anyone. Then they actually do those illegal things. They're told it's for America. An example is assassinating someone or some group and making it appear as something else such as a regular crime or a suicide. It can also include gathering information by stealing it: espionage. This is done not just by sole operators but by highly funded and above-top-secret secret departments. Departments such as those are the ones that suck down all the packets (each unit of binary data routed through the net) and store them.
When XKeyscore runs out of physical memory, it doesn't mean that the data is purged forever from the whole government. It just means the frontline people, such as Snowden was, don't have access to it in the same way anymore because the computer resources are simply being used at that level for the frontline, initial analysis of several days worth.
You'll notice that each time the existence of a program is leaked, the government tries (and fails) to make it appear that the whole government is limited to as far as that program can dig and for the reported time limit. It's why James Clapper lied to Congress (because the existence hadn't been leaked recently at the time of his deliberate lie).
The intelligence community believes that lying to cover what they are doing is righteous. They rationalize all their lies. It is a pathology. It is a mental illness, a from of or degree or insanity -- quite serious, as the dangers are as grave as touching off WWIII.
So, while Snowden through Greenwald will stream the leaks until Greenwald exhausts the info he obtained from Snowden, the government will play catch-up until then. When Greenwald has exhausted what he has, the government will say that, that's all there is, that, that's as far as the dragnetting goes or ever went, even though they've already admitted to the existence of the "Family Jewels," which necessarily has to be more than what Snowden accessed.
The fact is that the Obama administration is still engaged in totally illegal and unethical practices around the world. Barack Obama truly should be impeached and removed along with everyone who knew and didn't come forth to the American people about the very serious illegalities. Anything short of that under the Constitution will leave the nation-state ripe for totalitarian dictatorship or violent revolution.
I'd call upon everyone to convert to what Jesus called for, but who's ready and willing? Who's even willing?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)