The heat is on...

The EU has demanded a full explanation from the White House after a German magazine printed a detailed story of the spying activities against Embassies in the U.S. as well as EU offices in Europe. I can imagine that Government Officials at 1600 are operating in 'damage control' mode, but I doubt even the great oratorical tap dancing skills of the President can appease our Allies at this point.

Full disclosure is what is called for. At least that is what EU Officials are calling for. Barry 'Monsanto' O'Bama may find the next few weeks a bit awkward and uncomfortable. (No sympathy here.)

Still waiting for an explaination from the 'Nobel Peace Prize' President.

Playing the game...

After the initial and short-lived smear campaign the Administration made their intentions known on the international stage. They wanted Edward Snowden. Pressures placed on other governments, however, failed. Today President O'Bama seemed/acted as if Edward Snowden was insignificant, referring to him in an almost dismissive tone as "...a 29 year old hacker". Interesting.

But, make no mistake, they want Mr. Snowden and they want him bad. Politics is, in large part, a matter of saving face.

The faucet is really leaking now.

Here's another 'suspected' Leaker/Whistleblower/Hero/Traitor/Whatever that the Government is investigating according to NBC News.

Former Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General James Cartwright. (He's under investigation for - allegedly - leaking information about the cyber attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Remember that?)

 

It seems a great number of people are hell-bent on letting us know what the Government is doing lately, doesn't it?

 

Maybe we should listen.

 

 

 

For those who may not know, the Vice-Chairman of the JCOS is the 2nd highest office in the Military.

The way it should be... Everywhere.

The world could learn (a lot) from the protests in Bulgaria. For two weeks the citizenry has protested peacefully and effectively (one govt. official's resignation completed). Why no destruction and mayhem? Simple answer: The police do not assume authority to interfere with the peoples right to assemble and voice their opinion. No batons cracked heads, no tear gas fired at the demonstrators, no unnecessary harsh and brutal tactics used to disperse the protestors. Apparently they understand that the 'To protect and serve' motto is FOR the citizens, not the Government. Way to go Bulgaria!

You've got to love this picture!

The Rule of Law.

In 2010 the White House excitedly announced that they were finalizing a $60 Billion Arms sale to Saudi Arabia. This really wasn't big news at the time because negotiations for this sale started in 2007. What was big news was that a White House Reporter dared to ask the Press Secretary how this deal could go through given that it is illegal for the US to sell arms to any country guilty of violating human rights. Saudi Arabia is consistently near the top of that list. "We're talking $60 Billion dollars here", the Press Secretary replied. "I understand." the Reporter answered. "But it's still illegal." The Press Secretary glared at the Reporter then said, "Congress has 30 days to stop the sale if they want to. Next question?" Of course, Congress did nothing.

Then, way back in April of - um,,, Oh yeah, THIS YEAR! the United States, the UK and about 70 or 80 other countries signed a UN Charter/Treaty promising to curtail sales to any country or regime in violation of human rights. Then once again the White House announced it would be supplying arms to Syrian Rebels (which includes Al-Qaeda (???!) as well as continuing supporting Bahrain.

Bahrain, where people rose up to try to rid themselves of a brutal Dictator and become a democracy, only to be shot down in the streets. Shot down by Bahrain's Police and Saudi soldiers trucked in to stop the protestors - Saudi soldiers carrying US made M16A3's.

 So, I ask the question: "Did anyone else laugh out loud last week when President O'Bama said 'We are a nation that believes in the Rule of Law'?"
 

Has anybody here seen my old friend Martin? Can you tell me where he's gone?

This speech (in many ways his greatest speech - my opinion -) was given on my 13th birthday. I, as a young teen, heard it shortly after on a Public Broadcasting Network. I remember being both shocked and thrilled, and amazed. It made a big impact on me. Periodically, I listen to the recording, or re-read the transcript, and still remain amazed. His words are as relevant today as they were then. Sadly, his words also serve as a stark reminder that things haven't really changed all that much in the 46 years since he first spoke them.

Social Activism Sound Recording Project Martin Luther King, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" April 30, 1967, Riverside Church, New York

Pacifica Radio/KPFA/UC Berkeley Library: Other Social Activist Movements & Activities Social...

www.lib.berkeley.edu

Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you

Danger. Danger. Danger.

Credibility. Does the O'Bama administration have any credibility left? Not really. Lies, deceit, secrecy and abuse of power are in no short supply, but as far as credibility is concerned - both here and abroad - the current administration is bankrupt.

It seems commonplace now for administration officials and the President to remind the citizenry at every turn that its efforts are necessary to protect us and our freedom. But this is not true. In fact, this administration's actions - like the Bush administration - have alienated America, caused more enemies, and put our security at risk. They will say that they have foiled enemy plots and saved lives, but there is no way to verify these claims.

The President's indiscriminate use of Drone Strikes has made us - America - to be viewed as 'terrorists' in far too many countries. The UN has called on President O'Bama to curtail the use of the Drones. He has chosen to ignore the UN and the pleas of numerous other nations and has given unto himself ever increasing power to use these weapons as he sees fit. Drone attacks are not nearly as 'surgical' as he would like us to believe. There is always collateral damage. It's just the way it is when bombs explode. Over 3,000 people have been killed by drone strikes - 168 of them were children. (At least that was the count last time I checked.)

And now, in light of Edward Snowden's revelations, we find even our allies looking at us as aggressive and arrogant. And, in fact, our government is aggressive and arrogant.

It is time for this administration to reign itself in and to stop this insane destructive policy. Claiming that we are fighting a (seemingly perpetual) war on terror, this President has not only put our nation at risk, but - in the eyes of many - made us terrorists as well. Enough.

FISA Court Ruling tells O'Bama his actions are illegal but - nothing changes.

Says Guardian columnist Glen Greenwald: "Dianne Feinstein is outright lying when she says that she doesn't know of any instances of abuse at the National Security Agency. Leaving aside the fact that there have been several different reports by ABC News, by The New York Times, of the NSA abusing its eavesdropping powers over the last four years, there is a 2011 opinion, 80 pages long, from the FISA court, the secret court that oversees the NSA. And what it ruled, although the court—the opinion is top-secret and hasn't been publicly released. What it ruled is that the way in which the NSA is spying on American citizens is in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as in excess of the limitations imposed by the statute, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. In other words, what the NSA is doing is both unconstitutional and illegal. And so, although the public doesn't have access to that opinion—shockingly, that in a democracy you could have a court rule the government has violated the law and the Constitution and keep it all a secret—Dianne Feinstein has access to that opinion. And so, when she says into the camera that there's no evidence that she is aware of that the NSA has abused its spying powers, she's simply lying, because she knows that the claim she's making is false."

Q:  So, what safeguards are in effect?

A:  None.

 

 

 

I spy something... seriously wrong.

In August, 2007 I wrote, "I fear for the younger generation. They have grownup without the advantage of a true free Press - also, diminishing civil liberties and an apathetic, self-serving government." 

Some scoffed and some laughed and some said I was just too negative. Recent events, however, show that all three concerns were valid.

  As the Bradley Manning trial continues and Julian Assange sits in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Edward Snowden sits in an airport in Moscow bound for - somewhere. Meanwhile the world wonders about the massive spying efforts by the United States.

  The Associated Press and the Fox Network (and undoubtedly many others) now know that their reporters - and their contacts - were monitored by the Government. They expressed outrage. They decried the invasion of privacy. They expressed horror and disbelief. In short, they revealed their naivety and ignorance. If they say they had no idea that such a thing could happen then I believe it's safe to say they've been 'asleep at the wheel' for a long, long time. Illegal spying by the Government is no new thing. But, in the past we had real Journalists on the job to investigate such matters. Since the days of Ronald Reagan the Press has, by and large, given the Government ever increasing autonomy. Today, we have no serious 'main-stream' News reporting; we have talking heads, propaganda and entertainment. Serious News reporting has fallen to Independent Agencies and individuals. (Who are also monitored and marginalized.) Even Public Agencies, such as PBS, have acquiesced to the 'powers that be' on occasion.

  And the Government influence and control continues. In America the News people are having a field day with the "Hero or Traitor" debates rather than focusing on the unconstitutional actions of the Government. 

  The real issue is: How can the Government make it illegal to tell the public that the Government is acting illegally?

" It is getting to the point where the mark of international distinction and service to humanity is no longer the Nobel Peace Prize, but an espionage indictment from the US DOJ." says Julian Assange.

This may not sit well with some, but it seems to be the path we're on. The Constitution of the United States not only guarantees Americans certain rights and liberties, it also requires citizens to rise up and hold the Government accountable if it denies those rights and liberties. Unfortunately, the Administration sees it differently.

Statutes which have been put into place are classified and, therefore, not subject to Judicial review. And so, it becomes legal to make it illegal for anyone to expose that the Government is operating illegally. (Yeah, you might want to reread that sentence to make sure you understand correctly.)

It is illegal to tell the public that the Government is doing something illegal. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. Of course, I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer. (But, I can read.)
 

The revolt against unresponsive and corrupt Governments exploded around the globe in recent weeks. Support for the 'people' over their governments is overwhelming. Unfortunately, the United States seems oddly quiet.
  There are small pockets of protestors, to be sure, but by and large the American response is negligible. That's sad.