Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Holy Jumping Shitballs! Bill O' Reilly Is More Libertarian than John Stossel on NSA Surveillance

Stossel tells O' Reilly, "I’ve been called a traitor to the libertarian cause." That's because you are one John

by Larry Simons
June 19, 2013

On Tuesday nights telecast of The O' Reilly Factor, so-called libertarian and FOX News host John Stossel was invited on for his take on NSA surveillance. Stossel, it seems, is just not that bothered over the NSA spying on Americans because [and this is just as stupid as the reason non-libertarian supporters give, that it's to catch "terrorists"] everyone else knows so much information about already, like, Google and Facebook.

Stossel says, "I figure everything is out there. I try not to have secrets." He even admitted the vast difference between website browsers like Google or companies like Amazon having information about people and the Federal government having information: the online sites cannot lock anyone up or kill anyone. This, of course, adds confusion as to why Stossel is not bothered by NSA spying. If the government can lock him up or kill him, shouldn't that reason alone be sufficient enough to bother Stossel?

Yes, I realize his response to that would be "I'm not bothered because I'm not a terrorist or doing anything wrong". But, there are only a handful of true libertarians in the media that share their views on TV. I truly thought Stossel was one of the strongest ones, who are not easily fooled by what is really going on in government. Good Lord was I wrong.

If Stossel truly does not know that the real reason the American people are being spied on by the NSA is because we are all being monitored so the government can gather how much anti-government sentiment is really out there, then Stossel is more corporate-controlled than I thought.

Add to that the other reason it should bother Stossel: because he is supposedly a libertarian, who believes in civil liberties, small government and the government out of people's lives. If there is a bigger way the government can intrude on the civil liberties of the American people than to spy on their every move, read their email and listen to their phone conversations, I would sure like to know what that is.

But, the biggest way that the government can intrude on the lives of the American people does not bother John Stossel. He even admits, "I'm so angry at so much of what my government does, this isn't one of the things." Really? Apparently, in Stossel's "so-called" love for liberty, he forgot how important the Fourth Amendment really is. Stossel mentions he has even been called a traitor for his stance. He's right. A libertarian who supports any issue that is in defiance of civil liberties is being a traitor.

In a June 12 op-ed, Stossel wrote this, "So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not. Why? I need to keep thinking about this issue, but for now, two reasons: 1. Terrorists do want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots." What Stossel does not seem to realize [or care about] is the fact that success rates of government programs do not excuse their unconstitutionality.

What made me angry and shocked at the same time during this segment is that it was O' Reilly who took the libertarian stance, not Stossel. O' Reilly says, "As an American citizen, I don't want Washington to have the capability or the legality to come in and look at my private communications, be that on the phone, or an email or in texting, or anything." Stossel responds, "Even if you're a terrorist?"

O' Reilly responds, "It's a different situation. If I'm a suspected terrorist, with probable cause, a judge can get a specific warrant, I got no problem with that at all. But I don't want the federal government to have that kind of power because we saw what the IRS did with it."

Stossel jumps in and says, "And I don't know why I'm trusting them that they really are looking for terrorists."

What Billo said next made my heart stop. O' Reilly answered, "Because you're crazy, that's why". Good Lord, that would have been my response if Stossel said that to me four feet away! That made the second time I have agreed 100% with something coming from the lips of O' Reilly. The first one was on immigration, now it's the NSA. This segment was very scary and somewhat hard to watch.

I never thought I would live to see that day when Bill O' Reilly educated a libertarian on the Bill of Rights. Good Lord, what's next, Rush Limbaugh putting Ron Paul in his place? That will be the day of my first heart attack.

watch the clip

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Former CIA Director and Neocon R. James Woolsey Admits on Live TV That the Constitution Has to Be Ignored. Also Leaks How NSA Operates but No Calls for His Arrest

And they have the nerve to call whistleblower Edward Snowden a traitor? And people like Woolsey, who openly admit the Constitution must be ignored for security purposes, are patriots?

by Larry Simons
June 12, 2013

On Tuesday night's telecast of Piers Morgan Live, Morgan spoke to Robert James Woolsey, Jr. [former CIA director under Clinton] about the massive NSA surveillance program that was recently whistleblown by American hero Edward Snowden.

Morgan asked Woolsey what his reaction was to Snowden leaking the information. Woolsey explained that Snowden had "no right" to take it upon himself and leak this information, as Woolsey put it, Snowden "arrogated that entire decision to himself, he decided it was him who got to strike that balance, not the elected representatives that we vote for, not the President, not the courts.."

That made me laugh. There would be no such thing as a "whistleblower" if you're going to depend on or expect the very people involved in that which you are whistleblowing to disclose this kind of information themselves. Woolsey was basically saying, "Snowden should not have revealed this damning information, he should have waited until the very people behind violating our Fourth Amendment disclosed this information".

Well, generally anyone who commits a covert act or violates the Constitution and wants to do this in secret probably will not volunteer to reveal that secret information on their own. This is the very reason there are whistleblowers, to reveal information that under any other circumstance would not have been revealed.

watch the clip

The next part in the interview made me laugh out loud. Morgan [who, surprisingly, did a good job with the questions he chose] asked Woolsey what he thought the consequences of Snowden's decision to leak information would be. Woolsey said this:

"Well, the problem is, that once you start explaining to al Qaeda and Hezbollah how you are operating, they can avoid what you're doing. And you can't explain to the American people without explaining to Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Once you're sitting there blabbing about how these decisions are made, you have decided you're going to tell our enemies, those who want to kill us, those who want to fly airplanes into buildings and all the rest, how this all works. And you have decided that yourself, if you're Snowden. So he could well be responsible in the future for many, many deaths...but Snowden has made it easier for them to kill Americans and others".

So, let me get this straight, Woolsey. An employee who worked for a defense contractor as a system administrator at the Hawaii NSA office reveals to the American public that the United States is manufacturing a massive surveillance grid to spy on American citizens [not terrorists] and if there are terror attacks in the future, they will be because a whistleblower informed the American people that their civil liberties are being violated in the most egregious fashion in which this country has never seen? Really?

True, Snowden no doubt violated his employers' code of ethics and must be punished for that, but Woolsey wants Snowden to spend the rest of his life in prison? On what grounds? Whistleblowing that every single person in our government who is either involved in this program or has knowledge of it is violating the Fourth Amendment to our supreme law of the land? Who goes to jail for that?

The most unbelievable part of the interview was when Woolsey goes on to answer a question Morgan asked about Americans being disturbed by the quantity of data that is being amassed by the government and how uncomfortable Morgan feels about everyone knowing about his online activity. Morgan asks, "Why should they [know]?"

Woolsey unbelievably said this:

"Well, they don't know everything about your online activity. It's illegal for them to take some steps with respect to it, such as to get into the substance of the intercept. What this is as far as Americans are concerned, it's what's called meta-data, who's calling who and so-forth. 

If you and I talk on the phone to one another every day and then one day I call [unintelligible] al Qaeda in Pakistan, yes, somebody is going to say 'you know, I wonder what has been going on between Woolsey and Piers, let's have a look at that', but routinely and systematically there's no looking into the substance of your calls and mine. It doesn't work that way."

Wait a minute! Didn't Woolsey, just 2 minutes prior to making this comment, say this?:

"Well, the problem is, that once you start explaining to al Qaeda and Hezbollah how you are operating, they can avoid what you're doing. And you can't explain to the American people without explaining to Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Once you're sitting there blabbing about how these decisions are made, you have decided you're going to tell our enemies, those who want to kill us, those who want to fly airplanes into buildings and all the rest, how this all works."

Didn't Woolsey just tell us how it all works? Yes, he did! Why isn't he being arrested and taken into custody? After demonizing Snowden for "blabbing to our enemies" about "how this all works", he tells Morgan how it all works! [At least in the sense that telling him how the program doesn't work is essentially telling our enemies how it all does work]

Why is no one calling Woolsey a traitor? Where are the calls for his arrest? Why is no one saying he committed treason?

Morgan then brings on Ron Paul to counter the argument by rightfully stating that Snowden has done a great service to his country and how media and government love to demonize those who reveal corruption in our government by claiming they have committed treason.

Paul then made an interesting point that Obama should thank Snowden for forcing him to be more transparent, stating “Matter of fact, I think the president ought to send him a thank you letter, because the president ran on transparency and we’re getting a lot of transparency now. So finally we’re getting the president to fulfill his promise about transparency, so that’s pretty exciting for me.”

Morgan then had the Fourth Amendment posted on the screen and read it to Woolsey, after which Morgan asked this question to Woolsey:

"I just don’t see how you can say what is going on here in complete secrecy from 99 percent of the people it is being done to lives up to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is palpably a breach isn’t it?"

Brilliant question, in which Woolsey replied:

"Well, it depends on whether or not you want to preserve the country’s ability to operate in a world of terrorism in which a lot of terrorists are very technically sophisticated. If you want to defend the country you’re going to have to defend it."

Morgan then said, "Right, I understand that…but that wasn’t the question", which Woolsey insisted, "It is the question. It is the question. That balance between security and liberty is the question".

No, it was NOT the question Woolsey, you big fat un-American lying bastard. Morgan asked you how the NSA program lives up to the Fourth Amendment, and you could not answer his question. In fact, your answer was basically an admittance that the Constitution has to be ignored in order for the NSA program to operate. Woolsey is also flat out saying that there is no way terrorism can be dealt with unless the Constitution is trashed. And that, of course, is complete bullshit.

Morgan then asks, "Where is the probable cause for the 99.9% of the information being effectively seized here?"

Woolsey replies:

"Given the fact that this system was put together by the people's elected representatives, it's been upheld by the courts, that it's monitored by the FISA court, that it's monitored by the Attorney General and officials in the executive branch.. and that it is systematically supported by the people, like the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, Senator Feinstein, I think you would have to say that the government on this subject has done a reasonable job of balancing these two very important interests. If you try to look at liberty without considering security at all, you're putting on blinders".

Total bullshit Woolsey. Complete, 100%, certified, bona fide bullshit. First of all, no one gives a shit how long your list is of politicians, judges or agencies is, because if the program is not being done legally and Constitutionally [which it's not], it wouldn't matter if Jesus Christ himself approves it.

The bottom line is, Morgan asked you a specific question, "Where is the probable cause for the 99.9% of the information being effectively seized here?", and you refused to fucking answer it, because you know goddamn well you have no probable cause. You're violating the Constitution and you do not give a fuck, because you are an anti-American scumbag.

Morgan then went back to Congressman Paul, where Paul stated, "What he’s doing is repealing the Magna Carta. You can’t just do these kind of things. And this one is not only repealing the principles of liberty, but it’s destroying the Constitution."

Paul then made an excellent point about the difference between how people like Edward Snowden are treated compared to the people in Washington who attack our liberties on a daily basis.

Paul said:

"So my question should be to all of you who defend this nonsense is, ‘What should the penalty be for the people who destroy the constitution?’ They’re always worried about how they’re going to destroy the American citizens who tell the truth to let us know what’s going on, but we ask the question, ‘What is the penalty for the people who deliberately destroy the Constitution and rationalize and say, “Well, we have to do it for security”?’

Great question, and I am quite sure it would have been another question Woolsey dodged.

Woolsey is an un-American piece of garbage. This is the same fuck nut who, in February of 2012, said that Iran would attack the Statue of Liberty. According to PrisonPlanet writer Kurt Nimmo, Woolsey is a high-ranking neocon who is connected to the Council of Foreign Relations and neocon think tanks.

Nimmo wrote last year, "Woolsey is a high ranking neocon and one of the original signers of the January 26, 1998, Project for the New American Century letter sent to then president Clinton. He is a Rhodes scholar and Council on Foreign Relations insider connected to the Scowcroft Commission, the Rumsfeld Commission, and is affiliated with a number of neocon organizations and think tanks, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.

He is the former chairman on Freedom House, a CIA front, which makes sense considering Woolsey’s pedigree. He is also the chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, another neocon operation funded by the Bronfmans and home to a number of war on Islam advocates including Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Frank Gafney and others. It is considered a refuge for the PNAC crowd."

One has to ask themselves, who are the real terrorists? Those who want to kill us or those who want our rights and freedoms stripped from us? Keep in mind one thing: A terrorist can inflict a great deal of death and destruction. But, one thing he cannot do is take our freedom away. Only government can do that.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Hypocrite Ann Coulter: Under Obama, the NSA is Harassing Americans; Under Bush, Newspaper Editors Should Have Been Executed for Treason If They Printed Info About the NSA Wiretapping Americans

Coulter flat out lies and tells Hannity that Bush conducted his wiretapping program legally, contrary to the fact the he did not have court-approved warrants to do so

by Larry Simons
June 7, 2013

On Thursday night's telecast of Hannity, conservative hypocrite and all-around loon Ann Coulter may have achieved an all new milestone during one of her liberal-bashing rants. She may have accomplished the impossible; spewing forth what might just be the most hypocritical thing she has ever uttered.

While on the subject of the Obama administration's recent announcement that they will now be spying on all American citizens' phone calls illegally, she went on to say this:

"...In light of the revelations today about these Verizon phone calls which, again, in the abstract, if they're [the Obama administration] just looking for patterns in phone numbers called, not looking at the content of the phone call, and submitting every phone call made in America to a computer to look for patterns, to look for terrorism, well then, under an honorable administration and even an honorable Democratic administration, if you can think of one, you'd say 'fine, that's fantastic, we want to be protected from a terrorist attack'. 

The problem with this administration and with Eric Holder is we can't trust them, and in point of fact what we have learned, particularly in the last few weeks is, they don't care about terrorism, they want to spy on their political enemies."

Basically Ann is comparing apples to oranges. According to her, it was perfectly fine for Bush to listen in on the phone calls of American citizens as long as they are not listening to the actual content of the call, but "patterns" or buzzwords that the NSA may red flag. But if another administration listens in on every word being spoken, that is a direct violation to the Constitution and that president should be impeached.

The truth of the matter is that in both cases it is a violation of the Constitution and to civil liberties, but Coulter is attempting [and very poorly] to split hairs, as she always does.

Coulter adds:

"You will recall during the Bush administration when they were getting FISA court warrants to follow and listen in on phone calls made to terrorist phone numbers, to numbers found on terrorist computers, every once in a while they would cite an actual case where this was used, where this was helpful in stopping a terrorist attack.."

This nearly made me spit my iced tea all over my computer screen. First of all, the NY Times reported in 2005 that Bush signed a Presidential order in 2002 that allowed his administration to monitor international phone calls and emails of people inside the United States without court-approved warrants. Coulter is obviously getting her information from her home planet of Wingnuttia, because here on planet Earth, it was never fact that Bush received court-approved warrants.

And Lord knows where Coulter is getting her information that there was even one example where any of the illegal wiretapping the NSA conducted during the Bush years resulted in one thwarted terror attack. That was simply made up out of thin air.

Coulter's hypocrisy lies in just one of the several death wishes she has made upon her political enemies. In early March of 2009, NY Times columnist Dave Itzkoff sent Coulter a list of questions by email about her [then] upcoming debate with Bill Maher at Radio City Music Hall.  One of Itzkoff's question's was, "Do you consider yourself as speaking for the conservative movement, or just someone who has attracted many conservative fans? Something else?"

Coulter's response [and yes, it was in all caps as I have included]:


So, let's be clear about this: If you're a reporter and you simply include in one of your articles information about American citizens being wiretapped and their emails being read illegally, Ann Coulter believes you have committed treason and you deserve death simply for whistleblowing a violation of the Constitution.  But if you are the residing President and you have instructed the NSA to spy on American citizens illegally, you're protecting Americans and are doing nothing wrong.

If you're a President who just happens to be a different color and a member of the opposing party to which Coulter belongs to and you conduct illegal wiretaps and email searches, well then, that's wrong, but not because of the act alone, but because of your motive for doing it.

The bottom line is, no matter who conducts illegal wiretaps, that act alone is wrong because it's illegal. Even if the courts approved listening in on the phone calls of Americans still would not make that act constitutional unless they found evidence of probable cause of a crime. The courts are not the supreme law in the land, the Constitution is. The court's job is to simply interpret the Constitution correctly and make their decision based on the accurate interpretation of our supreme law.

This is why there are three branches of government, so that one branch [the courts; judicial] cannot rule over the other two, and the same rule follows for the other two branches.

The fourth amendment reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

If it is an illegal search or seizure, it is an unreasonable one. Period. Dirtbags like Ann Coulter do not understand this basic fact. Both Bush and Obama have violated this basic human freedom distinctly embedded into our Constitution. But assholes like Coulter want you to believe Bush did not violate the Constitution and did not assault our human rights, but only Obama has. That makes her the biggest hypocrite on planet Earth.

watch this clip from Judge Napolitano on the truth about the 4th amendment [you watching Ann?]

The Life and Times of ObamaBush: Now More Than Ever, Everybody’s a Target in the American Surveillance State

by John Whitehead
June 7, 2013

The recent revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers, with the complete blessing of the Obama administration, should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention over the past decade.

As I document in my new book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations). What too many fail to realize, consumed as they are with partisan politics and blinded by their own political loyalties, is that the massive bureaucracies – now computerized – that administer governmental policy transcend which party occupies the White House.

This explains why the civil liberties abuses carried out by the Bush Administration have not been corrected by the Obama Administration. Rather, they have been expanded upon. Take, for instance, the warrantless wiretapping program conducted during the Bush years, which resulted in the NSA monitoring the private communications of millions of Americans – a program that continues unabated today, with help from private telecommunications companies such as AT&T. The program recorded 320 million phone calls a day when it first started. It is estimated that the NSA has intercepted 15 to 20 trillion communications of American citizens since 9/11.

To our misfortune, the Obama White House has proven to be even worse than the Bush White House when it comes to invading the privacy rights of Americans. As Yale law professor Jack Balkin notes, “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national-surveillance state. [Obama has] systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the Bush Administration.” Unfortunately, whereas those on the Left raised a hew and cry over the Bush administration’s constant encroachments on Americans’ privacy rights, it appears that the political leanings of those on the Left have held greater sway than their principles. Consequently, the Obama administration has faced much less criticism for its blatant efforts to reinforce the surveillance state.

Insisting that terrorists “will come after us if they can and the only thing that we have to deter this is good intelligence to understand that a plot has been hatched and to get there before they get to us,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate intelligence committee, is defending the NSA’s actions, as well as the secret court order requiring Verizon to turn over its phone records to government agents. It’s a tired, overused line that preys on Americans’ fear of another terrorist attack and offers phantom promises of security while ensuring neither safety nor greater freedom. Even the vague and unsupported claim put forth by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) that the NSA surveillance program “helped thwart ‘a significant case’ of terrorism in the United States ‘within the last few years’” fails to justify a program of this magnitude, which makes everyone a target and turns us all into a nation of suspects.

Clearly, the age of privacy in America is coming to a close. We have moved into a new paradigm in which surveillance technology which renders everyone a suspect is driving the bureaucratic ship that once was our democratic republic. It will not be long before no phone call, no email, no Tweet, no web search is safe from the prying eyes and ears of the government. People going about their daily business will no longer be assured that they are not being spied upon by federal agents and other government bureaucrats.

Thus, the question looms before us. Can freedom in the United States continue to flourish and grow in an age when the physical movements, individual purchases, conversations, and meetings of every citizen are constantly under surveillance by private companies and government agencies?

Whether or not the surveillance is undertaken for so-called “worthy” (read: politically expedient) reasons such as preventing another terrorist attack, does not surveillance of all citizens gradually poison the soul of a nation and render us all data collected in government files? Does not such surveillance completely eviscerate our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by our Constitution?