Is Edward Snowden or the Government the villain?

In 2001 the Bush administration secretly ordered NSA to eavesdrop on the electronic communication of Americans without obtaining the warrants required by criminal law. At the time it was reveals by the New York Times it had been going on for four years. Edward Snowden was not the first to reveal the dirty antics of the NSA or the Bush/Obama administrations.

The government justified its actions by saying the threat of terrorism gave the President virtually unlimited authority to do anything to keep “the nation safe”.  This unlimited power has led to abuse. Does this also mean martial law?

The Founding Fathers protested laws that let British officials ransack at will any home they wished. The colonists all agreed the British needed warrants to carry out such actions. They also believe the warrants must specify the name of the person being searched and what was to be searched. The Fourth Amendment enshrined this idea in American law. It was designed to prevent Americans from being searched without probable cause and a warrant. The Founding Fathers would not have agreed to the NSA abuse as Bush and Obama want us to believe.

The purpose of mass surveillance is to suppress dissent and mandate compliance. The procedure has been used by Syria, Egypt, Libya, U.K., French, Germany, East Germany, U.S.A., China, North and South Korea, Iran and most likely all countries that have the capability to do so.

The ability to eavesdrop on people gives immense power to the governments. It is almost certain human nature will lead those with that power to abuse it.

In 2006 Bush denounced American companies for cooperating with China to carry out surveillance of its citizens when at the same time the Bush administration was doing the exact same thing here in America.

The threat of terrorism and fear has given the government a wide array of ways to abuse their power with little dissent from Americans. The Internet should advance democracy by giving those without power the power to express their dissatisfaction with those in power.  But, when it is used by the government to stifle discourse freedom of expression is lost. The Fourth Amendment becomes worthless.

How many Americans know that the government has the capability to activate their cell phones and laptops remotely and use them as eavesdropping devices? How many know even after Edward Snowden made it public? In 2006 a Federal Judge presiding over a mobster case ruled that the FBI turned on cell phones and used them as listening devices and it was legal to do so.

 How many Americans know about the program called PRISM, which allowed the NSA to collect private communications from the world’s largest Internet companies, including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Apple, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL and Skype.   How many know today even after Edward Snowden made it public?

The NSA does not operate alone the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand (the five eyes) are willing partners in mass surveillance.  They share information among what they call the “Five”.  What one of the “five” knows they all know.

In 1978 The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was created to prevent surveillance abuse that the Church Committee revealed. Eventually FISA itself became corrupt and rubber stamps anything the NSA wanted. FISA ordered Verizon to turn over all its records for communication between the U.S.A. and abroad, including any local telephone calls. That one decision made it possible for the NSA to collect private information on ten million American citizens.

For a one month period ending February, 2013 NSA collected more than three billion pieces of communication. Is it any wonder they missed the attack in San Bernardino.  They do not have the man power to handle that much information – no one does. The terrorist involved in that act had been communicating for over two years via telephones and Internet discussing their plans. Only after the fact did the NSA discover the records. The NSA “Collect it All” program was a complete failure in preventing the terrorist attack.

The Obama administration’s senior national security official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, lied to Congress when, on March 12, 2013 he was asked by Senator Ron Wyden: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans?” He lied under oath, but was never prosecuted. Edward Snowden confirmed he had lied.

The Obama administration made Americans think Edward Snowden was a liar by asking us to believe that it was impossible for a “HIGH SCHOOL” dropout to do what he claimed he did. They painted a picture of Edward Snowden as being inexperienced, young, seeking fame and “COCKY”.  If a “HIGH SCHOOL” dropout was not qualified then why was he hired in the first place? He dropped out of high school most liked because the public school system failed him. The curriculum probably bored him and the teachers were probably not qualified to teach him. Diploma or not he impressed government officials enough to hire him several times!

 In 2007 he applied for a position with the CIA in Geneva and got the job. He was given diplomatic credentials. He worked undercover. He was handpicked to support the President at the 2008 NATO summit in Romania. It was during his time with the CIA that Edward Snowden began having problems with what the government was doing.  He left the CIA in 2009.

Like many he thought Obama was going to bring transparency and change to government. He soon realized it was all campaign rhetoric and in fact Obama wanted more secret surveillance. It was at that time he began to think of becoming a whistle blower.

Edward Snowden was chosen by the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Joint Counter-intelligence Training Academy to teach cyber counterintelligence at their Chinese counterintelligence course. This does not sound like the incompetent, unintelligent person media in cooperation with the government tried to make Americans believe he was. He was a cyber security expert that NSA was glad to have and had even stated they wish they could find more people like him.

I believe Edward Snowden was willing to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of the greater good!

TO BE CONTINUED…

More Hillary Clinton B.S. to win an election!

In an interview Sunday, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton (of course she is the front-runner she has no Democrat competition) defended herself against critics of her words against radical Islamists and her actions immediately after the Benghazi attacks. Only Obama and Clinton could find a way to defend incompetency and blame someone else.

Clinton was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, a former staffer to her husband, President Bill Clinton, a close friend to both Bill and Hillary, a donor to the Clinton Foundation and served on the board of the Clinton Foundation until he embarrassed himself and thought it was in his best interest to resign if he wanted to continue to have a media career.

Stephanopoulos pressed Clinton on a common Republican criticism, that she refuses to say the United States is fighting "radical Islam." He pressed her as much as any best friend who wants to see her elected would press.

Clinton claimed she says radical Islamists all the time. Really! I do not think I have heard her or Obama make those types of comments.

She did add, “Using the term "radical Islam sounds like the United States is going after an entire religion, ignoring the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. Also, she said, it helps create the notion of a "class of civilizations" that actually aids Islamic State (ISIS) recruiting.” According to her and Obama they do not call it what it is in order not to aid the terrorist.

No one denies that there are more Muslims not waging terrorist attacks than Muslims that are. I think she is trying to buy Muslim and Liberal votes by being politically correct. I do not think we are fighting Islam the religion or all Muslims if I did I would not have a Muslim caregiver. We are fighting “RADICAL ISLAM MUSLIMS”. How can you fix a problem if you cannot or will name it?

When asked if the United States is winning the fight against ISIS, Clinton said, "I can say today that we have a new set of threats.” You had better watch your back Obama, Mama is turning against you to win an election! It was interesting to me that she in no way implied that we were losing the fight against ISIS – which we are.

Clinton attacked Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for suggesting we should "carpet bomb" ISIS, She mocked him by saying; "He's never had any responsibility for trying to figure out who the bad guys are and who innocent civilians are." As if she has! Civilian casualties are the cost of war and quite frankly I prefer civilian casualties in Syria and Iraq than in the United States. If we are not willing to risk causing civilian casualties abroad we should get out and bring our people and equipment home and wait until we are fighting on our own soil, risking the lives of American citizens.

She said current and retired military leaders should come together to rebuild the Sunnis and Kurds to fight on the ground in Iraq against ISIS. I am all for that, but it was Obama and Mama Clinton that prior to her campaigning were not willing to take the advice of military leaders to do just that. What a difference how ones greed to be President can alter their thinking.

She said people are within their rights to buy and carry guns after the San Bernardino attack. Yes, Mrs. Clinton the Constitution gave us that right before and after the San Bernardino attack. It is a shame it took San Bernardino to make you realize that.

She addressed charges she lied to family members of the four Americans killed in Benghazi by blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim YouTube video: she said, "I understand the continuing of the grief of the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans. … This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war." She does not and cannot understand what the parents are going through because she has never experienced that kind of loss. She did lie to not only the parents of those murdered she lied to the world. Fast moving – if she would have misspoken within hours of the event and corrected herself the next morning I could cut her some slack, but she, Obama and all the rest of his administration continued to lie for WEEKS after the event.

She talked about how Americans see her as untrustworthy: "Obviously, I don't like hearing that, George, but I think people who have worked with me, people who voted for me twice in New York, people I've had a very long relationship with and working on their behalf, are going to know what I do and when I say I'll do it, I'll move everything I can to get it done." The people that work with her are as dishonest as she is or they could not work with her. As far as her winning elections - that is the result of her being a good politician capable of saying what the people want to hear in order to get votes. Americans all know she lies and covers up and the majority may elect her President in 2016 even knowing those facts.

She said the U.S. should not declare war on ISIS because it is a "legal term" and only Congress has the authority to declare war. CONGRESS should declare war or not risk the lives of American soldiers. Anytime we send our troops to foreign soil to fight or advise we should be willing to do whatever is needed to WIN!!!!!

I am sorry Mrs. Clinton I am one that did not buy your campaign spill.

 

 

More gun control laws are not the answer to the terrorist and crime problems in the U.S.

The shooting Wednesday in San Bernardino, California gave Obama, Democrats and Liberals another opportunity to call for stricter gun control. I am for laws regulating the purchase and use of guns and we have laws in the United States for that purpose such as: people are prohibited from purchasing a gun if they are under indictment for a felony, or any crime which could result in more than a year in prison; if they have been convicted of a felony, or any other crime for which they could have been sentenced to more than a year in prison; if they are a fugitive from justice; if they are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, controlled substances, including marijuana; if they have been adjudicated mentally defective; if they have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; if they have renounced their United States citizenship, etc.

It seems to me that we do not need more laws we need to enforce the laws we have. If the government cannot enforce present laws how are they going to enforce new laws?

One problem with gun control in the United States may be the carrying of weapons, either openly or concealed, is primarily regulated by the States. Perhaps there should be uniform Federal laws governing ownership, use and types of guns. I know many would fear putting this control in the hands of Washington politicians. But, removing guns from being available to law abiding United States citizens violates the Constitution and solves nothing. 

Obama and his follower’s claim they are calling for, "common sense gun control," as though that would have prevented the tragedy. What exactly do they mean by “common sense gun control”? The articles I have read pertaining to last Wednesdays killings by TERRORIST said some of the weapons were not even purchased by the two terrorist. They were purchased legally by a friend. Perhaps a law regulating or prohibiting transferring or loaning weapons by unlicensed dealers would have help?

No assault weapons ban, no gun violence restraining order, no ammunition magazine capacity law would have prevented the San Bernardino slaughter. The French terrorist attacks proved, gun control laws written by people like Obama do not work they simply leave the innocent unprotected.

Murders and TERRORIST view gun control laws with the same contempt that they view laws against murder and terrorism. California already has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, but their laws did not stop the San Bernardino attack. California has an “assault weapons” ban. However, the shooters used AR-15-style semi-auto rifles, which are quite illegal ANYWHERE in California. California has Universal Background checks that Obama is proposing to put in force nationwide it did not stop the shooting last Wednesday. California also has strict magazine limits, but yet the terrorist ignored those laws. The simple fact is criminals and terrorist break the law and only law abiding citizen’s keep the law.

I do not think people who claim the Paris terrorist attack was caused by climate control and that the most serious problem the world faces is climate control is capable of writing “common sense gun control” laws.

It has been said many times, “guns are not the problem - people are the problem, guns do not kill - people kill” and I find that to be very true. Anyone that is determined to commit a crime using a gun will get one.  In the Philippines those bent on committing a crime with a gun and cannot afford one, make one. They are called a sumpak. They are made from materials like nails, steel pipes, wooden pieces, bits of string, etc. They kill and injure just like those guns made by a gunsmiths and major gun manufacturers. How are control laws going to prevent people from making homemade guns?

 Obama following the TERRORST shooting in California urged Congress to pass a law banning firearms purchases for people on the Transportation Security Administration’s unaccountable, unconstitutional no- fly list. What would that have done to prevent the slaughter last Wednesday? The two terrorist were not on the no-fly list. In fact Obama’s Immigration program welcomed one of them to the United States with open arms in a matter of weeks after she applied for a visa to the United States - that says volumes for Obama’s immigration vetting programs.

The New York Times is using space on its front page to call for greater gun regulation in the wake of recent deadly mass shootings. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. says the newspaper is running its first Page 1 editorial since 1920 on Saturday to "deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country's inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns."

Obama, Democrats and Liberals are never going to let a tragedy go to waste, not when it can be used to weaken the U.S. Constitution. President Obama’s then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made it clear what Obama’s political strategy is when he said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.” This is the same Rahm Emanuel that is Mayor of Chicago the killing capital of the United States.