Government Spying on Millions (Verizon)

[Polish Leppy 22]

The two faced nature of the the Obama administration on national security really frustrates me.

Obama two weeks ago gave a speech about ending the blank check authorization force, and talked about bringing more transparency to couter terrorism operations in general. Things I agree with. It is time we start putting liberty ahead of security again.

However the actions indicate at least one of two things is going on here, maybe both:

1- Obama has not control/oversight of the executive branch which has allowed the CIA, Department of Justice, and other agencies are just run rampant and out of control.

2- Obama is engaging in the very practices that he campaigned against back in 2008 when he campaigned for change.

The country voted for him twice. We deserve everything we've got coming to us.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The country voted for him twice. We deserve everything we've got coming to us.

You think McCain or Romney would have done anything differently? Obama's simply doubled down on policies that Bush implemented.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You think McCain or Romney would have done anything differently? Obama's simply doubled down on policies that Bush implemented.

Chicago51 said Obama is now doing things he campaigned against. My post wasn't a ringing endorsement for McCain or Romney. It was more of a summary of his entire presidency, and it's getting worse before it gets better. I can guarantee you the Bush administration wasn't going after left wing organizations and their finances.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

New York Times Op Ed Headline: Obama Administration Has Now Lost All Credibility

The New York Times? Wow. Just...wow.

 

[chicago51]

Chicago51 said Obama is now doing things he campaigned against. My post wasn't a ringing endorsement for McCain or Romney. It was more of a summary of his entire presidency, and it's getting worse before it gets better. I can guarantee you the Bush administration wasn't going after left wing organizations and their finances.

What do Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity, or any of these other groups do for social welfare that justifies why their donors should get a tax deduction for their donations?

 

[ACamp1900]

New York Times Op Ed Headline: Obama Administration Has Now Lost All Credibility

The New York Times? Wow. Just...wow.

NYT judging anyone else's credibility is funny... Not that I disagree

 

[Rizzophil]

What do Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity, or any of these other groups do for social welfare that justifies why their donors should get a tax deduction for their donations?

This is so far off base I don't even know where to start

 

[chicago51]

This is so far off base I don't even know where to start

How so?

In 1959 the rule was change that groups could receive 501c4 status if they were engage in mostly social welfare. Prior to 1959 it was exclusively social welfare. To make things worse the term mostly in the current has no description of what constitutes mostly.

Then in 2010 we had a Supreme Court ruling that open door for unlimited corporate donations. So corporations were looking for ways to donate money for things they support while still getting write off those donations on their taxes. So we had an explosion of 501c4s that are anything but social welfare groups and completely political groups.

So we have a crap tax law and and the Supreme Court ruling that allowed for maximum exploitation of that crappy tax law. Yet everyone is stunned when the IRS ran into problems.

Not excusing the IRS, they took short cuts that are unacceptable but our own stupid rules put them in a box.

And yes I think we should all be asking what Americans for Prosperity or liberal groups like OFA have to do with social welfare?

Social welfare at its finest. Tea Party Patriots: Senate Hiding Corporate Slush Fund Behind Food Stamps | Tea Party Patriots

How is ending the federal food stamp program social welfare? This is a group that should be tax exempt?

 

[magogian]

For the most part, I don't have a problem with what Obama is doing. Much of this is overwrought hysteria.

 

[ACamp1900]

For the most part, I don't have a problem with what Obama is doing. Much of this is overwrought hysteria.

Idk if I have major issue either... My thing is when you campaign as the total opposite of this and grill Bush for years over this AND claim the most transparent administration in history (Lolz) you'd better not get caught do this stuff secretly....

 

[pkt77242]

Idk if I have major issue either... My thing is when you campaign as the total opposite of this and grill Bush for years over this AND claim the most transparent administration in history (Lolz) you'd better not get caught do this stuff secretly....

I agree with most of what you said but I will point out two things.

Most Presidents campaign on something and then get into office and realize that some of what they campaigned on is not realistic. Not horribly surprising but disappointing.

Also I disagree with you on him doing it secretly as pretty much everyone in Congress knew what was going on. That is hardly secret.

 

[ACamp1900]

I agree with most of what you said but I will point out two things.

Most Presidents campaign on something and then get into office and realize that some of what they campaigned on is not realistic. Not horribly surprising but disappointing.

Also I disagree with you on him doing it secretly as pretty much everyone in Congress knew what was going on. That is hardly secret.

Did you know about this???........ It was done in secret when contrasted with the mega villain, the all evil... Bush

 

[Rack Em]

Did you know about this???........ It was done in secret when contrasted with the mega villain, the all evil... Bush

Knew about it a month ago.

 

[dshans]

Knew about it a month ago.

And you didn't share?

Suspicious, very suspicious ...

There should be no secrets on IE.

Now where's that form so I can request a double secret warrant to rummage through your laundry basket?

 

[yankeehater]

I would say something negative about this administration, but I am sure this site is being monitored.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I believe my point is more salient than ever. Anyone who wants to disparage Obama over Bush, McCain, or Romney, or Romney, McCain over Obama is playing into the hands of those that want to steal from you, and run the show to their benefit.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.​

Voltaire​

When has the last president not been part of the Harvard or Yale elite, or not had his administration run by the same?

There is absolutely no difference between Reagan (started off as a Communist and New Deal Democrat), Ford, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. None. People that claim there is, are just behaving as conditioned. The tea party and libertarians are just more smoke screen to convince people there is a choice. Neither can deliver enough votes to make a difference, except be used by Republicans as Anderson (IND IN) and Nader were in '80 and '00 respectively. Watch, the new trend is the hot new party will trend to cut votes away from the non-blessed candidate, and help the insider. (Also, the policies of these parties will help the power elite in that they will make unpopular stands seem status quo. The net result is that I have had more people point out the number of "dirt poor" people, people whose residences were shacks, and cars were clunkers, put up Bush, McCain, and Romney signs. Perfect example is Joe the Plumber. McCain claimed he was a plumber and he made a quarter of a million dollars a year. Neither could have been further from the truth. I knew who this guy was for years. He had a son who was in the class between my daughters at school. He isn't even what he turned out to be.)

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What do Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity, or any of these other groups do for social welfare that justifies why their donors should get a tax deduction for their donations?

Fighting for a constitutional government, private property, and other rights granted to us as citizens.

Again, we didn't see the Bush Admin going after Code Pink, moveon.org, or thinkprogress.org. At the very least, when Bush talked about our enemies it was Al Qaeda. When Obama says (in a speech) "punish your enemies", we know who he's talking about.

 

[kmoose]

Obama's simply doubled down on policies that Bush implemented.

Which directly reflects on his character. Obama decried many of the policies that he is now using to his distinct advantage. I'd like to say that this makes him a hypocrite, but I don't think that is the case at all. I think he is guilty not of hypocrisy, but of hubris. Hubris in the sense that, during his first campaign, he thought that he was going to be able to come in and run the government by the absolute rule of law, never straying even one millimeter from the straight and narrow. That's naïve at best, incredibly stupid at worst. Once he got into office, he discovered that there was no reasonable way to arrest and prosecute terrorists like Al-Zarqawi. The only practical way to stop them was with a Hellfire missile, fired from a Predator drone. He also discovered that there is no CTU, no Jack Bauer, and key evidence does not suddenly magically appear just in time to save the day. But, if you know a couple of key players, data mining can clue you into the workings of a terrorist cell, and expose them.

Personally, I don't care if Verizon sends metadata to the government. I don't care if they know who I called, who called me, and how long we talked. I would absolutely care, if they were privy to the actual conversations that took place.

 

[kmoose]

What do Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity, or any of these other groups do for social welfare that justifies why their donors should get a tax deduction for their donations?

What did MoveOn.org do?

 

[Cackalacky]

I agree with most of what you said but I will point out two things.

Most Presidents campaign on something and then get into office and realize that some of what they campaigned on is not realistic. Not horribly surprising but disappointing.

Also I disagree with you on him doing it secretly as pretty much everyone in Congress knew what was going on. That is hardly secret.

STFU! And all this time I thought they really meant what hey said to their bases during primaries and when moving to the center during the general elections. I need to go rethink this whole thing.

 

[Cackalacky]

Fighting for a constitutional government, private property, and other rights granted to us as citizens.

Again, we didn't see the Bush Admin going after Code Pink, moveon.org, or thinkprogress.org. At the very least, when Bush talked about our enemies it was Al Qaeda. When Obama says (in a speech) "punish your enemies", we know who he's talking about.

LOL. Such Fail.

 

[magogian]

I would say something negative about this administration, but I am sure this site is being monitored.

I like Obama's policies.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

LOL. Such Fail.

Nice side swipe. Fact is we're living in a post-constitutional America right now in more ways than one and it sucks.

Obama to Latinos: "Punish" Your "Enemies" in the Voting Booth
6:39 PM, OCT 25, 2010 • BY JOHN MCCORMACK

In a radio interview that aired on Univision on Monday, Mr. Obama sought to assure Hispanics that he would push an immigration overhaul after the midterm elections, despite fierce Republican opposition.

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

Referring specifically to Republicans such as Senator John McCain, who are stressing border security and supporting strict immigration laws like Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration measure, Mr. Obama said, “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”

 

[chicago51]

What did MoveOn.org do?

Never said MoveOn.org should be tax exempt.

Why should we subsidize any groups donors as tax payers?

 

[chicago51]

Fighting for a constitutional government, private property, and other rights granted to us as citizens.

Again, we didn't see the Bush Admin going after Code Pink, moveon.org, or thinkprogress.org. At the very least, when Bush talked about our enemies it was Al Qaeda. When Obama says (in a speech) "punish your enemies", we know who he's talking about.

The current IRS target liberal groups too:

Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives - Atlantic Mobile

Were more conservatives targeted? Yes, however there is more conservative groups than liberal groups out there. Liberal groups tend to be larger but there is less of them. If you look at ratio of groups target vs the ratio of liberal to conservative groups it is not that out of wack.

Like I said the IRS took short cuts unacceptable short cuts but they are in this position because the Eisenhower administration, and the current Supreme Court put them in a bad spot.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance

Government lawyers are trying to keep buried a classified court finding that a domestic spying program went too far.

—By David Corn
| Fri Jun. 7, 2013 12:22 PM PDT

In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.

This important case—all the more relevant in the wake of this week's disclosures—was triggered after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate intelligence committee, started crying foul in 2011 about US government snooping. As a member of the intelligence committee, he had learned about domestic surveillance activity affecting American citizens that he believed was improper. He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another intelligence committee member, raised only vague warnings about this data collection, because they could not reveal the details of the classified program that concerned them. But in July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:

* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
* I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.
​

For those who follow the secret and often complex world of high-tech government spying, this was an aha moment. The FISA court Wyden referred to oversees the surveillance programs run by the government, authorizing requests for various surveillance activities related to national security, and it does this behind a thick cloak of secrecy. Wyden's statements led to an obvious conclusion: He had seen a secret FISA court opinion that ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law. But, yet again, Wyden could not publicly identify this program.

Enter the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public interest group focused on digital rights. It quickly filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Justice Department for any written opinion or order of the FISA court that held government surveillance was improper or unconstitutional. The Justice Department did not respond, and EFF was forced to file a lawsuit a month later.

It took the Justice Department four months to reply. The government's lawyers noted that they had located records responsive to the request, including a FISA court opinion. But the department was withholding the opinion because it was classified.

EFF pushed ahead with its lawsuit, and in a filing in April, the Justice Department acknowledged that the document in question was an 86-page opinion the FISA court had issued on October 3, 2011. Again, there was no reference to the specific surveillance activity that the court had found improper or unconstitutional. And now the department argued that the opinion was controlled by the FISA court and could only be released by that body, not by the Justice Department or through an order of a federal district court. In other words, leave us alone and take this case to the secret FISA court itself.

This was puzzling to EFF, according to David Sobel, a lawyer for the group. In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union had asked the FISA court to release an opinion, and the court had informed the ACLU to take the matter up with the Justice Department and work through a district court, if necessary.

So there was a contradiction within the government. "It's a bizarre catch-22," Sobel says. On its website, EFF compared this situation to a Kafka plot: "A public trapped between conflicting rules and a secret judicial body, with little transparency or public oversight, seems like a page ripped from The Trial."

Before EFF could get a ruling on whether this opinion can be declassified and released, it had to first sort out this Alice in Wonderland situation. Consequently, last month, it filed a motion with the FISA court to resolve this aspect of the case. "We want the FISA court to say that if the district court says the opinion should be released, there is noting in its rules that prevents that," Sobel says. Then EFF can resume its battle with the Justice Department in federal district court for the release of the opinion. The Justice Department was ordered by the FISA court to respond by June 7 to the motion EFF submitted to the FISA court.

Currently, given the conflicting positions of the Justice Department and the FISA court, Sobel notes, "there is no court you can go to to challenge the secrecy" protecting an opinion noting that the government acted unconstitutionally. On its website, EFF observes, "Granted, it's likely that some of the information contained within FISC opinions should be kept secret; but, when the government hides court opinions describing unconstitutional government action, America's national security is harmed: not by disclosure of our intelligence capabilities, but through the erosion of our commitment to the rule of law."

As news reports emerge about the massive phone records and internet surveillance programs—each of which began during the Bush administration and were carried out under congressional oversight and FISA court review—critics on the left and right have accused the government of going too far in sweeping up data, including information related to Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. There's no telling if the 86-page FISA court opinion EFF seeks is directly related to either of these two programs, but EFF's pursuit of this document shows just how difficult it is—perhaps impossible—for the public to pry from the government information about domestic surveillance gone wrong.

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The current IRS target liberal groups too:

Proof the IRS Didn't Target Just Conservatives - Atlantic Mobile

Were more conservatives targeted? Yes, however there is more conservative groups than liberal groups out there. Liberal groups tend to be larger but there is less of them. If you look at ratio of groups target vs the ratio of liberal to conservative groups it is not that out of wack.

Like I said the IRS took short cuts unacceptable short cuts but they are in this position because the Eisenhower administration, and the current Supreme Court put them in a bad spot.

Ummmm...what? Are you kidding?

 

[chicago51]

Ummmm...what? Are you kidding?

Conflicting laws, regulations feed IRS confusion

This explains the changes made to tax law in 1959 which has along with combination of the post Citizens United explosion of conservative groups seeking 501c4 status led to the messy situation with the IRS.

My question is why give any organization liberal or conservative that is clearly political tax exempt status? These groups have a political agenda they're not charities.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Conflicting laws, regulations feed IRS confusion

This explains the changes made to tax law in 1959 which has along with combination of the post Citizens United explosion of conservative groups seeking 501c4 status led to the messy situation with the IRS.

My question is why give any organization liberal or conservative that is clearly political tax exempt status? These groups have a political agenda they're not charities.

1) My question was whether you're serious that there are more conservative groups than liberal filing 501c4. And if so, where are you pulling those numbers? I suggest you take that question up with people pulling strings and making those decisions, but I don't think either of us would get very far.

2) If the president/ IRS chief were as noble as you, they would've further investigated left wing nonprofts as thoroughly as they did the conservative ones. That did not happen.

But you're changing the subject and this is just one of dozens of examples of the post-Constitutional America we live in and asked for by voting for Obama a second time. We absolutely deserve it as a country.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The revelations of spying on telephone customers are extraordinary -- but it gets even worse. The government is spying, in real time, on rank-and-file Internet users. From the Guardian:

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

CLick here to call for investigation of this massive surveillance overreach: Demand Progress | EVEN MORE: The government is snooping on the whole Internet

Let's put it plainly: It has been conclusively demonstrated that the government is spying on millions of Americans, without meaningful oversight, and without the assent of the very people -- all of us -- whom our government is supposed to represent.

Click here to call for an investigation and hold the federal government accountable: Demand Progress | EVEN MORE: The government is snooping on the whole Internet

The top secret document obtained by the Guardian also lists Microsoft, Yahoo, YouTube, Skype, and AOL as providers of user data to the NSA's PRISM program.

Those who have defended the government's enhanced cyber serveillance powers in the past argued that the NSA would have to get the consent of internet companies to obtain electronic communications -- but PRISM totally circumvents that, by giving the NSA direct access to the companies' servers!

Click here to condemn this enormous violation of our rights and demand an investigation: Demand Progress | EVEN MORE: The government is snooping on the whole Internet

All this effectively means anything we do on the internet can be (and has been) monitored by the federal government.

We must not lie down as the NSA and the federal government eviscerate our privacy rights, invading and surveilling our every move.

Click here to join the fight: Demand Progress | EVEN MORE: The government is snooping on the whole Internet

Thanks

Something I received.