“Sometimes I Feel Like, Somebody’s Watching Me”

20 04 2009

And listening to my calls, and tracking my URL visits, and storing my GPS movements, etc…

This paranoia is something I share with liberals, who elected Obama in large part because he pledged to restore our Constitutional rights of privacy and ditch the power-grabbing Police State model while declassifying Bush’s previously stonewalled perversions so that we could heal.

However, it seems Obama is turning out to be potentially far more invasive than Bush, and even a few liberals (outside the corporate msm) are noticing.

I expected this from Obama, a man who has now appointed more, “czars” than the Romanovs, as The Volokh Conspiracy highlights:

Over some 300 years, Russia was ruled by a total of 18 czars of the Romanov dynasty. However, as David Rothkopf of Foreign Policy points out, the Obama administration has now appointed more czars than that in just three months.

But back to Obama the Constitution Shredder, from Reason:

Barack Obama, who at one point was looking at least a little better than his predecessor on the issue of warrantless domestic surveillance, may turn out to be just as bad. During his campaign he criticized the Bush administration for flouting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by monitoring communications involving people in the U.S. without a court order. But then he went along with amendments to FISA that legalized such surveillance, even giving in on the issue of retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that facilitated it. Now The New York Times reports that the National Security Agency has been abusing its new statutory powers, collecting purely domestic communications along with the international phone calls and email messages covered by the FISA amendments:

Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to quash an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) lawsuit aimed at holding Bush administration officials responsible for warrantless surveillance conducted prior to the FISA amendments, surveillance that Obama himself has said was illegal. It argues that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would harm national security—a claim frequently made by the Bush administration, which Obama has criticized as excessively secretive. Obama’s Justice Department has gone even further than the Bush administration, arguing that the PATRIOT Act immunizes government officials who participate in illegal surveillance, except when “the Government obtains information about a person through intelligence-gathering, and Government agents unlawfully disclose that information.”

The Atlantic’s, Marc Ambinder has something on Bush’s favorite loophole, the state secrets privilege:

The Obama administration suffered a bit of a legal setback this afternoon: a federal judge in California rejected the administration’s assertion of the state secrets privilege in the civil suit brought by an Islamic charity that was allegedly subjected to illegal NSA surveillance.


B.O. Stinks As Bush

7 04 2009

The World Class Intellect and Beacon of Hope and Change, did his best Dubya impression today.



Will the corporate media do their best, “bash Bush” impression?

Stop The ACLU, with the scoop:

The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration’s wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.

Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a lawyer for the customers, said Monday the filing was disappointing in light of the Obama presidential campaign’s “unceasing criticism of Bush-era secrecy and promise for more transparency.”

In February Obama lawyers used the same “state secrets” tactic to block a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of five victims of extraordinary rendition — the CIA’s famed kidnap and torture program. “This case cannot be litigated,” Department of Justice lawyer Douglas Letter declared on February 9th, arguing that the case, Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, should be thrown out. “The judges shouldn’t play with fire in this national security situation.”

ACLU director Anthony Romero decried the move. “Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government.”

Now, warrantless spying can be added to the list.

”In our case we have no reason to believe that the warrantless wiretapping has ended,” said [EFF legal director Cindy] Cohn, “so at some point we have to call it Obama’s warrantless wiretapping.”

Also, Barcepundit makes fun of the Brilliant One after he didn’t know Austrians spoke German:

OBAMA SAYS he doesn’t speak Austrian. It’s unkown [sic] if he can speak Argentinian or Brazilian but, to his credit, his American is way better than his English.

Hot Air drives it home:

George Bush’s critics rightly roasted him for his tortured syntax and waterboarded grammar, and used it to make the claim that the graduate of both Harvard and Yale was an idiot.  Well, perhaps, but I don’t recall him ever claiming that Austrian was a language.  It takes a highly-esteemed intellect, it seems, to miss the fact that Austrians mainly speak German.

“Brilliant Constitutionalists” Say This Stuff All The Time

19 01 2009

The other day, the soon-to-be, Ego-In-Chief called for a, “new Declaration of Independence.” Obama is seemingly gleeful at the economic crisis and the opportunity it presents for bigger government, huge expenditures and a grand opportunity for his legacy.

Side note: Maybe I sound like liberals who say Bush relished 9/11 because he could then bludgeon every Muslim nation…heck, maybe Bush did enjoy it.  Then again, don’t we all remember Bush at the kindergarten when he learned of the 9/11 attacks, something the empathetic left has never let him live down.  That was not the look of happiness.  But I’m open to the idea that he had a bone to pick with Hussein (Saddam)…are liberals open to the idea that Obama is ecstatic over the current economic storm?

Later in his speech, Obama gave us another hint of the contempt he has for the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence saying, “documents that (are) imperfect but had within them, like our nation itself, the capacity to be made more perfect.”

This reminds us of the audio tapes that emerged from the Constitutional law professor lecturer in the final days of the 2008 election.  The corporate media didn’t dare redistribute the word because the lunacy in them could have doomed his campaign and killed their dream.

In them, Obama, even without a Russian accent, bemoans:

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radicalIt didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

If nothing else, this type of information proves that we still don’t know anything about Barack Obama because the media, so integral to a free Democracy, has completely failed us.

Geez, I wonder if Saul Alinsky, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Castro agree with Obama about the imperfect founding documents.

Casual Certificate Could Cause Constitutional Crisis

10 01 2009

The “Cook-countification” of America oozes onward.  Nevertheless, this is a curveball to our readers.

Thanks Instapundit