When James Clapper testified to the US Congress that the US government does not suck down all metadata on American citizens, he lied.
Barack Obama knows he lied.
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is the United States government official – subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President – required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to:
- Serve as principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council about intelligence matters related to national security;
- Serve as head of the sixteen-member Intelligence Community; and
- Direct and oversee the National Intelligence Program.
Further, by Presidential policy directive signed in October 2012, the DNI was given overall responsibility for Intelligence Community whistleblowing and source protection through Presidential Policy Directive 19.
Barack Obama has done absolutely nothing to James Clapper for lying to Congress and to the entire American and global population. That's because Barack Obama has no problem with lying to Congress or to the American people.
Please note that Barack Obama put the liar in charge of whistleblowing and source protection. That means that Barack Obama put James Clapper in charge of preventing whistleblowers, such as Edward Snowden, from effectively blowing the whistle in any meaningful way. Had Edward Snowden gone to his superiors within the so-called national-security system and raised with them the issues he has raised with the American people, absolutely nothing would have happened other than that Edward Snowden would have been hounded and drummed out and threatened with punishment if he were to reveal to the American people what he did reveal before allowing himself to be subjected to what others before him have gone through when they tried to get things corrected from within the system.
It's illegal for Barack Obama to have done what he did. The US Congress knows that but has done absolutely nothing to Barack Obama for lying and for allowing lying, condoning lying, aiding and abetting illegal lying to Congress and to the American people about such a huge, clear violation of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights.
Now, when the President and his administration continually say that they were not sucking down the contents behind all that metadata, they lie. They are lying about it to this day.
James Corbett says below, "We have suspected for years that phone calls were being recorded and stored wholesale." Well, I didn't suspect it. I knew it. I won't say how for the same reasons the US government doesn't reveal everything: protecting methods and sources.
Before these things came out as they have, I said repeatedly that the US so-called intelligence community/national-security state was sucking down all contents and retaining it for later access. The following is not the only open-source substantiation for my position. Even the Snowden documents already released show that in addition to the metadata databases there is another level which allowed Edward Snowden to access the contents for no less than 5 days.
That information does not, repeat, does not indicate that after the 5 days, all the contents was/is irretrievably (permanently) erased everywhere in the government's system. It is not erased everywhere in the government's system.
We have suspected for years that phone calls were being recorded and stored wholesale, but that was actually confirmed by Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent who casually let it slip on Erin Burnett's CNN program in May that US intelligence agencies have access to complete phone conversations whenever they want in the name of "national security."
Although this caused a buzz at the time and was picked up by numerous publications, it was soon covered over by the Snowden story, which once again focused people's attention on metadata.
See: 4 minutes and 44 seconds into the following video (you may click, hold, and slide the indicator to quickly get to 4:44):
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)