The following are some of my quick thoughts on Barack Obama's Press Conference of August 9, 2013: (Note: Video clears after 10 seconds; Full Press Conference)
Whistleblowers: After I had written the following, the question was somewhat addressed by a reporter: If all of this needs to be done, if Obama was finally forced to address these things in public (and he was), then let Bradley Manning out, stop dogging Julian Assange, and don't pursue Edward Snowden.
How can the American people have a "fact-based" debate without the facts? Edward Snowden, through Glenn Greenwald, is providing vastly more current facts than the Obama administration ever even considered supplying.
How could anyone in his right mind trust Obama's whistleblower protection order when Obama completely ignored the war crimes exposed by Bradley Manning? Bradley did not receive a fair trial because any trial would have been unfair.
The NSA is sucking in the information. They do have information on everyone. Much of it has been saved. Any of that may be searched afterwards. There have not been internal firewalls that are only able to be breached upon a warrant issued by an open court.
If the "warrants" Obama refers to are general warrants, what good are they constitutionally? If a person is investigated because a friend of a friend happened to communicate with someone outside the country, what good is that constitutionally?
If Obama is right, then why do former NSA analyst and whistleblower Russ Tice's current sources within the NSA say to him that the US does what Obama claims it doesn't: collect it all, store it all, etc.? Why also is his administration blocking FOIA requests by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which requests, if properly answered, would show one way or the other whether Obama actually knows what he's talking about and really whether or not he's flat-out lying.
Non-NSA issue but important, as were others: Larry Summers has been slapped around by the Press for no reason? What part of de-regulation, etc., does Obama not comprehend or care about? Larry Summers is mistake prone, too mistake prone to let him head the Fed, period.
What about James Clapper's lie to Congress? Obama did nothing.
What about the expectation of privacy that nearly all Americans had, and that all should have been able to have, concerning their phone and other records? That data is scanned for patterns.
Obama talks about that there aren't abuses. The Constitution guarantees against unreasonable searches, and whether or not anything is done to harm a party by virtue of an unconstitutional search is irrelevant. The mere act of general searching, searching without reasonable suspicion, without probable cause, without naming the specific things to be looked for, etc., is itself an illegal abuse of power. Why doesn't Barack Obama know that? Why does he even imagine for a second that the rest of us should be fine with his administration, various governmental agencies, nosing around in our private lives?
Part (not all) of why there is terrorism is because governments make life coarser. Invasiveness of government is coarsening.
I am offended for Glenn Greenwald by Obama's statements about how Glenn has been going about releasing the information. It takes time to go over, to digest, to comprehend, and to discuss with editors, etc., and to write about such information. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the way he has been doing it.
Obama's statement about future technology that could block the government is mind boggling. The NSA is about breaking such codes. The service Edward Snowden used to communicate with Glenn Greenwald has just shut down its encrypted email service precisely on account of the NSA possibly hacking its way in.
People who would look at what the NSA is doing and find it lawful would be people who do not understand the Constitution and its guarantee that we be secure in our personal effects, correspondence, etc. Look, the government can't open a paper envelope at the post office or anywhere in the country, for crying out loud, without a proper warrant. Where do they get off looking at a friend of a friend's emails just because the one of them communicated with someone, including another American, outside the country? It's incredible.I am absolutely confident that Barack Obama has committed high crimes while in office, not the least of which includes war crimes via his drone strikes, and should be impeached and remove for same.
Let me also say that if his staff and he think that his Press Conference went a long way in reducing the scrutiny that his administration and he will be coming under, they are very sadly mistaken. He has testified against himself with his statements.
I ask NSA workers who know the real truth to brave it and to blow the whistle within and then blow it extremely hard outside when Obama's whistleblower protection measures utterly fail. You will be in a position where they cannot touch you if you handle it correctly. You will not have to leave the country. You will not be kept from making a decent living either. Simply make sure you have the proof that Obama has been telling falsehoods about the NSA to the American people. If the NSA gives you a hard time within, go directly to Obama with it. If he won't hear you and handle it all correctly and openly with you to your reasonable satisfaction, demote and/or terminating others, etc., take it public, by all means.
If you think you have to be "Deep Throat" for awhile, then be that.
UPDATE: I ran into this after I published my post:
Spencer Ackerman of The Guardian has correctly pointed out that real Civil Libertarians have the same view I've expressed above.
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)