Obama Says Americans Are To Blame For Domestic Spying—And He's Right

Barack Obama shows the tiny amount of loss of constitutional freedom citizens have suffered, in his assessment, as his regime has employed the intelligence arms of government to massively spy on Americans. Note how his hand is in the standard-operating position for grasping a "roach". Thus, the Freudian "encROACHment". No doubt Obama would rather be getting high in Honolulu. But not just yet.
"[W]hen citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too."

The above quotation is Barack Obama, explaining his support for the 2008 FISA bill, and how he expected citizens who felt differently about it to tell him so. The 2008 FISA bill, among other things, granted retroactive and prospective immunity from prosecution to corporate "partners" who obeyed spying orders from the US government.

Companies such as Google, AT&T, Yahoo, Verizon, etc., were made active agents of the vast national intelligence gathering apparatus of the US government. This is the very essence of a fascist state's integration of public and private enterprise working to monitor and control the behavior of the people. It is a fundamental threat to the Constitution. It is in fact a declaration of war by the US government against the people—whom the government clearly views as just another enemy on its long list.

The following was written on Friday, after I watched Barack Obama make his San Jose declaration—that "balance" is spying on every American 24-7. I found Obama's blasé attitude in talking about the need for pervasive spying on Americans, and his dismissal of the people's concerns about losing their rights as mattering only "in the abstract" as clear signs he has renounced any notion he should be held accountable for his actions.

Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama clearly views his reelection as a validation of his policies and the actions (known and unknown) of his regime.

If the American people will continue to sit there baaing like sheeple, they deserve any outrage perpetrated by their government against them.

Barack Obama, speaking in California Friday, and searching for a way to spread the blame for subjecting the entire American population to surveillance from post-9/11 anti-terror programs, said the real culprits are the American people, who keep electing politicians who sign off on domestic spying powers of government:
"These are the folks you all vote for as your representatives in Congress, and they’re being fully briefed on these programs, and if in fact there were abuses taking place, presumably those members of Congress could raise those issues, very aggressively."
Obama implied no member of Congress had "raised those issues" about the current programs.

Obama sought to deflect criticism that people's phone calls and internet emails and other communications were being monitored by the government, but he was vague and contradictory about those claims.

For example, he asserted that:
"Now with respect to the internet, and emails, this does not apply to US citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States."
However, later in his remarks, Obama qualified this assurance:
"[The programs] do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the emails of US citizens or US residents, absent further action by a federal court."
So, Obama allowed in the second version that a court could order the review of phone call and email content. While that is nothing new, the mining of basically the entire communication data stream of the USA is something that most people were not aware of, and which Americans in the past had rejected (for example, the TMI program) as an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

What is not known, but may be happening, is that all phone and internet communication is being stored in a giant government database so that it may be mined in general and then focus given to specific items, and individuals, as the government decides it is useful. In fact, the first question to Obama was in part about this very thing—the "secret government database" of Americans' communications—and Obama did not deny this existed.

And it would be consistent with the idea Obama had in his assurances that if government spies wanted to listen to specific phone conversations, after determining that the meta data of the conversation was interesting to them, they would require a separate and specific court approval for that action. Presumably, the content of the call would have been preserved, allowing the spies to analyze it later.

As critics have been pointing out for many years, because of the large number of requests to judges for these focused reviews of data, and the typical concern that time is of the essence, judges tend to rubber-stamp the requests, just as Congress has abandoned any meaningful oversight in rubber-stamping the expansion of domestic spying on Americans to a level never envisioned even in the original idea of the much-hated Patriot Act.

Obama dismissed any assessment of himself and the US government as being like something out of 1984:
"[I]n the abstract, you can complain about Big Brother, and how this is a potential…program run amuck. But when you actually look at the details, then I think we’re struck the right balance."
Nevertheless, Obama said he welcomed the debate about whether it was time to retire such programs. He said he did not however welcome the leaks that enabled the debates to happen.

UPDATE: Yesterday, the Obama regime continued to justify its anti-constitutional domestic spy programs, choosing to release (i.e leak) formerly classified information they alleged supported their contention that little individual exposure to spying took place, while, they allege, terror plots and nefarious schemes were monitored and mitigated by the domestic spying programs.

As the New York Times pointed out yesterday:
"The national intelligence director’s rare Saturday statement was notable for what it omitted: any description of other means the government may use to intercept Internet information directly from fiber optic cables or satellite systems even before or after it reaches those Internet companies."
Funny, huh, the public spy statement being notable for what it omitted.

The Times really explained how all this spy-spin should be taken, when it discussed the quality of Barack Obama's remaining value as a teller of trustworthy information to the American people:
"The [Obama] administration has now lost all credibility."
Later, someone stuck in an edit at the end—"lost all credibility on this issue."—meaning on the issue of domestic spying on all Americans.

Lastly, here is one the truest things Barack Obama has ever said, again from the Friday declaration, and it should be taken to heart and mind by every politically engaged American:
"[I]f people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here."
Again, if the people will not demand better of themselves than to be such saps they continue to trust and elect the perpetrators of tyranny, they deserve what they get.

This is the time for revolution.

Or maybe—as your masters have always correctly assessed the benefits to them of your lethargy—it is the time for you to roll over and sleep some more.