Now that we're aware that virtually all of our communications are being monitored 24/7 by the Obama administration, it's not surprising that people are trying to think of how to present the most innocent (and non-patriotic) profiles possible in their emails, phonecalls, and Internet habits.
There are so many potential keywords (and words which can be misconstrued), that a lot of people are deciding that it's best just to avoid speaking aloud or writing about controversial topics like politics, liberty, freedom, religion, or the competency of Barack Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama.
Instead, Americans are wearing fixed (albeit nervous) grins when they talk about how great our deficit is, how terrific abortion is, and how outdated the Constitution is. Which is, after all, the actual goal of the NSA's PRISM program (at least as it is administered under Barack Obama): not to catch terrorists, but to make ordinary citizens afraid to speak their minds or seek the truth about abuse of government power.
But Hope n' Change would like to offer everyone a "good news / bad news" perspective...
The bad news is that if you're reading this, you're already on Barry's shit list and likely to be suffering government abuse in the future (if you're not already).
But the good news is that this frees you to speak up as long and as loudly as you possibly can. Which will be our plan until the black helicopters arrive.
24 comments:
WTG DOC!!!!! The 3rd The COOLEST SOB in The Conservative Blogsphere!
LOL! I love the "You are all so fired!" cartoon. If it wasn't for sarcasm, I'd never get to laugh.
I don't care how, or when, or on whose watch this all started. The only thing that I care about is that this ends....now. Constant surveillance of our entire population is the endgame for our freedom and liberty. We are no better than the USSR or any other totalitarian state that ever existed, probably worse with the technology now available.
"Instead, Americans are wearing fixed (albeit nervous) grins when they talk about how great our deficit is, how terrific abortion is, and how outdated the Constitution is."
Sound like an episode of the Twilight Zone--or Star Trek.
What we're going to find is endless more revelations of spying and data collection on everyone -- including Obamaphiliacs -- and they're not going to be happy either. If anyone thinks the IRS or listening scandals are limited to Tea Party they are out of their minds. No incipient dictatorship ever trusted their own sycophants.
That the president had the audacity to say that we need to tolerate this for our safety is a paternalism that is disgusting -- particularly since real terrorists are being let into the nation routinely -- while citizens are now presumed guilty until proven otherwise. The gov't -- elites of both parties -- has simply declared everyone a potential threat. And well we are -- through the voting booth. Yep, time for a third party.
Still, alas, it'll be another presidential term after this one before the people really get fed up. After all, it took from the 1740s until 1776 for anything to happen the first time.
Jim, it seems to me that we (you and I)think alike! well, except for that 'sexual pref. thing' ..... anyway, I like ya! however, I'm not so sure I'll be around for too many more election cycles. and I REALLY want to see our country get started on the right track before I leave. oh well, it takes what it takes.
Good one, Dr. J! and sad but true.... Perhaps Edward Snowden will attract the black helicopters long enough for you to go into hiding. I'm hoping to finish my giant underground bunker this week, and will be stocking it with hundreds of guns and millions of rounds of ammo. I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20500 if anybody wants to join me for the grand (but super-secret) opening.
@George in Houtx,
Sounds like we are fellow geezers, but I too would love to see a huge dressing down of these liberal morons that are purposely destroying the country, and a huge awakening of the vast lemming population.
Geezer is another code word for domestic terrorist. But it won't be a drone attack that gets you; it'll be the pink shot.
Can any believe that if a Republican President made even a fraction of this massive power grab that the demoRATS would be OK with it and ready to move on to other issues?
That they and the msm would be cool and spinning for him? Don't think so.
@Jim Hlavac, even worse it's not just that "real terrorists are being let into the nation routinely" that is the problem. As Stilt points out in today's commentary, it's that those allegedly in charge have a different definition of terrorist than does the everyday American.
When they catch a real terrorist red-handed, they call it "workplace violence." When he then proposes to defend himself by arguing that he had to kill his fellow American soldiers to keep them from killing members of a terrorist organization, it should be "case closed, guilty" at that point, but it's not.
Instead, our government now considers the "everyday American" I mention above to be the real terrorist. That is the disease with roots all the way at the top, and tendrils that spread throughout the whole of government.
Okay, I'll play.
If only abortion had been safe, legal and free in 1960, America would be much different today.
Seriously, what's the big deal with PRISM? It's run by the same government that does cavity checks on my 94-year-old aunt, but lets the Tsarnaev family come and go at will. So how much damage could it possibly do with such incompetent people at the helm?
But then again, we all know that the real threat to the republic isn't followers of the "religion of peace" who due to oppressive western values only occasionally resort to violence. It's conservatives who wish to adhere to the archaic principles written by a bunch of dead white men a on a dated parchment.
http://michellemalkinblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf
But you know the best part of PRISM? Finally Congress is subject to the same abuse that the rest of us are! Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois asked Eric Holder if he’s spying on members of Congress. Holder's response? “With all due respect, senator, I don’t think this is an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue.”
In other words, not "no". The greatest Attorney General ever finally feels confident enough to tell the truth! Freedom at last!
But as our great telepromted leader says, it's all a small price to pay for security.
And how wonderful it is that top Obama administration officials are using secret email accounts so that they can continue with their mission to subjugate free Americans without pesky media and GOP interference.
http://news.yahoo.com/top-obama-appointees-using-secret-email-accounts-193430956.html
Allah bless their mission on our behalf.
And finally, Jay Leno the other day: "We wanted a President that listened to all Americans, and now we have one!"
@REM1875- I believe all 3 of the top Coolest SOBs in the Conservative Blogosphere will be receiving coveted hellfire missiles - we just won't know when, or what direction they'll come from.
@Robert Sudbury III- There's something about Barry's look of stern interest that cracks me up even without a punchline. That's probably the same face he uses when people are going "blah blah blah" about vital issues while he's actually thinking about golf.
@TrickyRicky- The Wall Street Journal editorial board supports the collection of this data as a necessary tool in the war on terror - and they make a good point (I get worried when I disagree with the smart, conservative folks at WSJ). BUT (and it's such a huge "but" that it makes the first lady's look petite) the real problem is that this administration has made people justifiably afraid of political abuse using "secret" data.
So we've got a real problem here: do we give up a valuable tool on the war on terror in order to keep Obama and the Left from waging war on conservatism? The fact that we now have to make such a devil's choice is entirely the fault of this corrupt, divisive, thoroughly untrustworthy administration.
@DavidD- Right you are, sir. Specifically, I'm thinking of the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life," which is still one of the scariest, most nervewracking half hours I've ever watched.
@Jim Hlavac- You're right that the administration's policies don't seem to be consistent: monitor everyone for possible terrorist inclinations but, out of political correctness, give special leeway to individuals who have all the warning signs of radical Islamism.
I still don't really think a Third Party can change anything (for that matter, I don't really think either of the Two parties can change anything substantially either. But then again, it's a Monday.)
@George Houtx- For those of us who are on the far side of Life's bell curve, measuring progress (or defeat) in 4-year increments pretty much sucks. When Barry won reelection, I mentally superimposed his 2nd 4-year reign of terror on the pie chart of my remaining life, and it was way too big a slice - especially since the slice right next to that one might go to Hillary.
@Colby- I'm familiar with that bunker! In fact, I saw Reggie Love carrying barrels of KY Jelly into it!
@Earl- "Geezers" are people old enough to remember how the country really was back in the day, instead of relying on the reinvented distortions of the Left. That makes us dangerous to The Narrative. But as you say, Obamacare (and time's ravages) make it easy to do away with us. It's as simple as having a "rogue agent" accidentally add a Do Not Resuscitate specification to your medical treatment records.
@REM1875- If there were a Republican president in office now, the Lefties would be screaming in nonstop TV marathons until they were hoarse and the camera lenses were flecked with blood. Imagine the filibuster scene from "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," only performed by Rachel Maddow.
@txGreg- Bingo. The "Big Data" system is great for looking for terror, but when the head of Homeland Security suggests that potential terrorists are military veterans, constitutionalists, fiscal conservatives, devout Christians, and people who believe our borders should actually be borders, then good people have legitimate reason to be very worried.
And regarding Nidal Hassan and Fort Hood, the sumbitch has essentially declared that he killed and wounded our military personnel for the benefit of Islam and the Taliban. So it's time to throw out the "workplace violence" bullshit (sorry folks, no other word will do) and give appropriate honors and benefits to the survivors of the massacre. And assuming we've gotten all of the information out of Hassan that we're going to get, a firing squad is long overdue.
@John the Econ- Good points (and sarcasm) all the way.
Hasan needs to just be gut-shot and left to suffer. I wouldn't consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment if he had PLENTY of time to reflect on his actions while he died slowly and painfully.
@JustaJeepGuy- The gut shot works for me. And I think the best way to avoid "cruel and unusual punishment" is by, in certain cases, making the punishment cruel all the time - thus making it not "unusual." I can think of a young Tsarnaev who might benefit from "cruel and usual" punishment, too.
@Stilt, I hear ya!
"If only abortion had been safe, legal and free in 1960, America would be much different today."
But we don't really know when he was born, do we?
If the gubmint is spying on Tea Partiers and they're also spying on journalists, then I guess folks like Candy Crowley, Diane Sawyer and Chris Matthews are perfectly safe. So Chris, it's OK to keep whacking off to that picture of obama! There are no cameras in your house. Really. Go ahead and spank it good.
@Colby, such is the short-shortsightedness of so many on the left; they simply can't conceive of the massive, out-of-control state apparatus they've fostered for decades coming back at them.
That's why they scream bloody murder when about the end of the republic when they were convinced that John Ashcroft was after their public library reading lists. And yet now we're talking about aggregating every phone call, credit card charge, bank transaction and e-mail, and there isn't one-tenth the shrillness from the left.
I have a feeling that may change in 3 years.
A couple of things to remember.
1)He who writes the "algorithms" controls the "machine". With respect to that Stilt's cartoon is dead on.
2)The lefties must assume that no one inimical to their cause/agenda will ever be elected again. Why else would they be so unconcerned about the depradations of the current Administration.
I would hope that no one with our beliefs would ever in engage in such actions, but having been around the block more than once I am fully aware of Lord Acton's dictum about the corrupting influence of power.
@Torqued- That is funny!
@Colby- Matthews house doesn't need to be bugged to reveal "the sound of one hand clapping." He posts the videos on his Twitter account.
@John the Econ- I'd agree with you, were it not for the fact that the very system we're talking about will ensure that there is no change in 3 years.
@It's No Gouda- Power may corrupt, but it's even more dangerous when the people who get power were already corrupt, as is certainly the case now.
So now that great "conservative" "statesman", whose voice and speech patterns have always struck me as being eerily similar to Øbama's, has weighed in by labeling Edward Snowden a traitor...
Yes, I can understand the sensitivity of revealing the capabilities and application of PRISM, but I would not say that someone "outing" the gummint on spying on its own people en masse is traitorous to the Constitution, to which they've likely taken an oath (maybe not contractors, though). Traitorous to this administration, definitely - but not to the Constitution. And which does one swear allegiance to when taking an oath, really? In the final analysis, the Commander in Chief swore the same oath, so this oath is sworn exclusively to the Constitution (though, in this case, Øbama appears to have had his fingers crossed), which was formed to prevent such things as the gummint gathering evidence without justification. This is precisely what this widespread gathering of such data amounts to - the ability of the gummint to analyze the data - supposedly private data - to incriminate citizens for undetected crimes. On the surface, the altruistic surface, some say: "So what! Big deal! I've nothing to hide!" but I'll guarantee that there is a law on the books somewhere that you've unwittingly violated, and the data to incriminate you may very well now be being churned by some supercomputer until the dots are connected, and the connected data is someday useful... Within our constitution is the prohibition against the gummint investigating those presumed innocent until they find a crime - a tactic commonly employed in other societies. This practice was notably abandoned in the USSR - when you are a possession of the state, no evidence is needed anymore.
Pant. Pant. I think that was a rant...
So @Emmentaler Limburger, would you consider Bradley Manning a free speech patriot as well?
Let see.... In the Snowden case, we had someone leak that the government is gathering massive quantities of personal data on/ personal communications of citizens of the US, in clear violation of constitutional limits. In the Manning case, we had an individual divulge diplomatic cables, details of air strikes, and army reports on the action in the middle east. One contains information regarding the abuse of power against the US citizens, the other regards information relative to diplomatic relations and military activity in an active conflict. Hmmm. Can you show me the parallel, John? Somehow I'm missing it.
Aside from each breaking the law to divulge their secrets, one seems to have more to do with whistle-blowing, while the motivation of the other, unless trying to vilify our forces in the middle east, is less apparent. Now, perhaps, to a Libertarian perspective, the action in the middle east is outside the constitutional authority of the gummint - is that where you find a parallel, perhaps? - but the potential outcome from each revelation is decidedly different.
I don't see Snowden as a "free speech patriot", John. Snowden took a great risk to lay out what he did, clearly, but I don't for a minute think I know his actual motivation for doing so any better than I know Mannings - whose leaks, as I recall, were surreptitious. Could Snowden have seen the gathering as a dangerous transgression against the protections in the Constitution and wished to reveal it in an attempt to put an end to it? Could be. Could he have just as easily been motivated by something other? Yup. Could be. But the end result is far, far different from that of Manning's revelations. In Snowden's case, a rogue process may be curtailed (likely no, though, since such stalwarts of the constitution as Boehner seem so nonplussed by it all). In Manning's case, many lives were potentially put at risk as tactical and diplomatic information was divulged.
And, in terms of breaking the law by leaking classified information - you might recall that The Øne's administration had that particular market cornered in the run up to the last election.
So, no, John: I don't see Manning as a "free speech patriot" or a patriot of any sort.
Post a Comment