June 7, 2013

Obama: "I welcome this debate and I think it's healthy for our democracy. I think it's a sign of maturity..."

"... because probably five years ago, six years ago we might not have been having this debate. And I think it's interesting that there are some folks on the left but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it, who weren't very worried about it when it was a Republican president."

I watched the video at the link 3 times because I was fascinated by the hesitations and the facial expressions. I can't tell when/whether he's lying, but I can tell when he's pleased with himself.

100 comments:

paminwi said...

Isn't he always pleased with himself? His problems are always the fault of someone else. Namely Bush!

gutless said...

I don't trust the guy. The "let's have a debate/national discussion" trope is worn out.

edutcher said...

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Ann Althouse said...

I can't tell when/whether he's lying,

His lips are moving, aren't they?

exhelodrvr1 said...

So he is implying that what they are doing is at the same level as what was happening under President Bush?

Did he comment on the fact that he was one of those people when he was in the Senate?

dbp said...

...but also some folks on the left, like the former Senator from Illinois who screamed bloody murder when Bush did much less than this.

elkh1 said...

The Republican president never swept domestic calls, nor sic the IRS on his opponents.

The Republican President was fighting the War on Terror which the MSM told us was a figment of Cheney's imagination. The Democratic President never acknowledged there was such a War. Now the Democratic president snoops on millions of citizens to fight Cheney's figment of imagination. Strange.

Lori said...

Obama does not have the, ahem, constitution for this (this=criticism). He is not in-your-face Michelle. He will resign.

Chip S. said...

"I welcome this debate.

No, I won't be taking any questions."

edutcher said...

Anybody remember when the Gray Lady caught Dubya doing what FISA is empowered to do and screamed bloody murder?

This is vastly different and I'd like to know what did Pinch know and when did he know it because it looks like there were more than a few in the media who knew about it.

And, if we're having a "debate", since we now know the NSA was eavesdropping on people they didn't like, were they also going after other people on somebody else's dislike list?

Bender said...

I can't tell when/whether he's lying

I welcome
Lie - he believes he can do what he wants without question

this debate
Lie - there is no "debate" - he will do whatever he wants regardless of what others say

I think it's healthy
Lie - he thinks that having to talk about this hurts him

our democracy
Lie - as someone who has consistently utilized dictates to do whatever he wants, he does not believe in democracy

I think it's a sign of maturity
Lie - he thinks he is the only adult in the room and that everyone else is childish to question him

probably five years ago, six years ago we might not have been having this debate
Lie - we did in fact discuss these matter back then, with Obama himself shooting his mouth off every chance he could

I think it's interesting
Lie - he doesn't think it interesting, he thinks it beneath contempt

some folks on the right who are now worried about it, who weren't very worried about it when it was a Republican president
Lie - a typical factual and intellectual dishonest deflection and projection of his own malfeasance onto his enemies

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Does he have any--ANY--capability to open his mouth without taking a shit on the right?!

AprilApple said...

Obama considers half the country as "shadowy".
Obama thinks free speech in the hands of his political opponents is ..."shadowy".."slippery" and "covert"..."a problem for democracy."


The IRS timeline:


Aug. 11: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out a fundraising email warning about "Karl Rove-inspired shadow groups."

Aug. 21: Mr. Obama devotes his weekly radio address to the threat of "attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don't know who's behind these ads and we don't know who's paying for them. . . . You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation. . . . The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."

Week of Aug. 23: The New Yorker's Jane Mayer authors a hit piece on the Koch brothers, entitled "Covert Operations," in which she accuses them of funding "political front groups." The piece repeats the White House theme, with Ms. Mayer claiming the Kochs have created "slippery organizations with generic-sounding names" that have "made it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington."


Sept. 2: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warns on its website that the Kochs have "funneled their money into right-wing shadow groups."

Sept. 16: Mr. Obama, in Connecticut, repeats that a "foreign-controlled entity" might be funding "millions of dollars of attack ads." Four days later, in Philadelphia, he again says the problem is that "nobody knows" who is behind conservative groups.

Sept. 21: Sam Stein, in his Huffington Post article "Obama, Dems Try to Make Shadowy Conservative Groups a Problem for Conservatives," writes that a "senior administration official" had "urged a small gathering of reporters to start writing on what he deemed 'the most insidious power grab that we have seen in a very long time.' "

Sept. 22: In New York City, Mr. Obama warns that conservative groups "pose as non-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups," even though they are "guided by seasoned Republican political operatives" who might be funded by a "foreign-controlled corporation."

Sept. 26: On ABC's "This Week," Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declares outright that the "benign-sounding Americans for Prosperity, the American Crossroads Fund" are "front groups for foreign-controlled companies."

Sept. 28: The president, in Wisconsin, again warns about conservative organizations "posing as nonprofit groups." Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, writes to the IRS demanding it investigate nonprofits. The letter names conservative organizations.

On Oct. 14, Mr. Obama calls these groups "a problem for democracy."

On Oct. 22, he slams those who "hide behind these front groups."

On Oct. 25, he upgrades them to a "threat to our democracy." On

Oct. 26, he decries groups engaged in "unsupervised spending."

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

"In California earlier Friday, President Obama stressed that the Internet monitoring program only targeted international users.

"This does not apply to U.S. citizens and it does not apply to people living in the United States," Obama said."

How can there be a debate when its one lie after another? Now they are saying this program stopped a terrorist attack by a US (citizen? resident?) from Colorado.

NOw maybe they can make a case for the monitoring but probably not if they think they have to lie.

DanTheMan said...

"when it was a Republican president"
Racist dog whistle, and more self-pity from the Victim-in-Chief

It reminds me so much of 'Elections are always close when your name is Barack Obama', even though he'd never had a close one.

Simon said...

While I do agree with him that there's an large element of partisan hypocrisy in the reaction, one must note that it is not entirely indefensible. One could argue--not persuasively, I think, but plausibly--that a program was acceptable under President Bush because he could be trusted, or that it was unacceptable under Bush because he couldn't be trusted, but that the situation is different under a different President. I don't think that that argument works, but it's not wildly out there.

Rusty said...

This is the same speech we got about the ACA. It's a done deal. now I'll tell the rubes we want to be fair.
Boiler plate Chicago alderman.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

"I can't tell when/whether he's lying"

Oh well, at least you can tell us what he's saying w/ his hair color du jour.

Gahrie said...

I can't tell when/whether he's lying, but I can tell when he's pleased with himself.

Hell that's easy!!!!

He's always pleased with himself!

His biggest problem is that he is never wrong and it's never his fault.

Simon said...

And I don't welcome the debate, personally. Presidents are privy to information that the general public isn't and can't be. They are charged, before God and history, with protecting this country in light of that knowledge; national defense is the core of the legitimate functions of the federal government, and it lies in the very thalweg of traditional governmental functions. Why do you think that President Obama pulled a 180 and continued the program notwithstanding his (I think sincere) condemnation of it as a candidate? Because it's easy to have an opinion when you have no responsibility; it's easy talk when you know nothing. Candidate Obama knew about as much as we did; President Obama knows better.

And while we would like to believe that such policies should be debated publicly, they can't be. The materials that form the predicate for the debate are secret, and some of the policy responses that are necessary don't work if we know about it. Both Obama and the DNI have said in the last 24 hours, and they are absolutely correct, that this program loses much of its utility if the people it targets know about it. At minimum, it is far more effective if it is secret.

So the public can't debate this, and the public can't know the solution. This is precisely why it matters whom we elect as President. This is a balancing act that we need to confide to the President, and because that is an awesome and extraordinary trust, we need to ensure that we are electing serious, sober, experienced, God-fearing men and women whom we can trust.

Chris Low said...

Start with "I welcome this debate." If that were true, we would not have had to wait for a leak. BTW, some on the right and some on the left didn't like this Big Brother stuff when a Republican did it either. On the right, it was us Libertarians. On the left, there was Senator Obama, among others.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

Althouse has a reoccurring focus on the lies of others.

I wonder if she's thought about her own psychological motivations for such serious lie sussing.

BTW, do folks know when Althouse is telling lies in her posts? Even the little things have could be lies. For example, one of her posts about a meal included fabrications. Why lie about such? How can someone lie about such. The truth isn't much of boundary for some people.

Sneaky is a sneaky does.


MadisonMan said...

Obama only lies when his lips move, like any politician.

MadisonMan said...

He welcomes this debate that was thrust upon him by unwelcome leaks and events.

Scott M said...

I can't tell when/whether he's lying, but I can tell when he's pleased with himself.

A point of order. As things have been playing out, it's quite clear that a) he's always lying, and b) he's always pleased with himself. Thus, any observations claiming to spot a behavior "tell" are incorrect.

wyo sis said...

He told us everything he's going to tell us twice in a little over a minute. He managed to get in several digs at his political enemies and about 15 ums, Masterful.

The debate is over and he won.

SteveR said...

This is easy. Got caught, blame Bush, I welcome debate, I'll stop it, I'll be praised for doing this by the pundits who are waiting for something to latch onto.

Of course the timing and Obama's history obliterates his heroic role but we all know how the media and low information voters will fall.

DADvocate said...

He's a lying liar. Eight years ago, he sponsored a bill that would have made the surveillance clearly illegal. Now that he's the man in power, he likes the surveillance.

He's trying to attack the Republicans and deflect attacks on himself. Why's he not worried about it when a Democrats's president? He's self identifying as a major hypocrite, as well as further showing himself to be a fascist.

Mark said...

If it can be proven that Obama was actively involved in using the IRS to harrass/suppress political opposition he will resign. Or pull a Vince Foster.

Tim said...

"...and because that is an awesome and extraordinary trust, we need to ensure that we are electing serious, sober, experienced, God-fearing men and women whom we can trust."

Yeah, that didn't happen.

And Althouse voted for Obama for the explicit purpose of thrusting that trust and responsibility on the Democrats, who heretofore we could not intelligently, rationally or justifiably trust with such responsibilities. Both the Senate and House intellignece Committees were privy to much of this information; it wouldn't have taken any effort at all for any of the Democrats on those committees to tell Obama, "Back off, Bush is right about the threat, stop demagoguing it."

But that didn't happen either.

Instead, we got smart but gullible people taking an irrational leap of faith because they wanted to. Shorter Althouse: "Congrats on the driver's license. Gotta learn to drive while drunk, so here you go kid, here's a fifth of Jack Daniels, a GT500 and the car keys. Let us know how it works out." Her vote for Obama was just as soundly reasoned.

Tim said...

Mark said...

"If it can be proven that Obama was actively involved in using the IRS to harrass/suppress political opposition he will resign. Or pull a Vince Foster."

You are kidding, right?

None of those things are going to happen.

pm317 said...

also some folks on the right who are now worried about it, who weren't very worried about it when it was a Republican president."

That is easy to counter. 9/11 was still raw 5 or 6 years ago. Technology has grown exponentially from when Bush did this kind of thing, we didn't have this much rampant social networking business. Online activity has grown by leaps and bounds. Surprisingly, there was not much mistrust with Bush at least not as much as there is now with Obama.

Hagar said...

I thinkthe "data mining" can be used for snooping, so it will be used for snooping.

And note tht when Holder was bearded about the Rosen warrant, his response was that the law ought be changed, so that the DoJ would not need to perjure itself in order to get warrants. It did not occur to him that the law specifies when he can, or cannot, get a warrant for a reason, nor that, regardless, the DoJ is not supposed to commit perjury.

However, with that attitude by the Attorney General and the full backing of the President, what difference, at this point, does it make?

bpm4532 said...

Lots of things exploding on this issue:
- US mail being photographed (front and back of letters) an likely scanned and OCR'ed into text.
- Information requests were dying out under Bush, but accelerated under Obama.

This is all on Obama. I think Bush was having success in the war against terrorism and with Obama the terrorists knew the door was opening wide for them Just like the deficit was declining significantly under Bush, but the advent of Obama was a key factor in causing the economy to come unglued.

Methadras said...

He's a liar, this call for healthy debate is a farce. What's the point of having a debate when the argument never existed because you performed the act, that you now want to debate, in secret? Hubris, arrogance, conceit, and deceit. That is who Obama is.

edutcher said...

bpm4532 said...

This is all on Obama. I think Bush was having success in the war against terrorism and with Obama the terrorists knew the door was opening wide for them

The situation in a nutshell.

C Stanley said...

He bites his lower lip repeatedly in this clip.

Quayle said...

Spewing inane platitudes with maximum smug-ery.

garage mahal said...

He welcomes this debate that was thrust upon him by unwelcome leaks and events.

Oh, you say Glenn Greenwald published a leak in the Guardian of what we were doing in secret?? I welcome this debate!

Revenant said...

If it can be proven that Obama was actively involved in using the IRS to harrass/suppress political opposition he will resign.

Even if it was proven that Obama did that, there would be no rational reason for him to resign.

Simon said...

DADvocate said...
"Eight years ago, he sponsored a bill that would have made the surveillance clearly illegal. Now that he's the man in power, he likes the surveillance."

Or, now that he's the man in power, he is privy to information that he did not have at the time. And that's more or less what he said in one of these briefings. When he got into office, he learned things (I suspect about the scope and imminence of the threats we face) that undid his previous criticism of the program.

Tim said...
"Yeah, that didn't happen."

No, it didn't. And we need to do better; if this business shocks people, it ought to shock them into electing better presidents, not the kind of knee-jerk populism that we've seen thusfar that threatens to make us less safe.

Revenant said...

He's a liar, this call for healthy debate is a farce.

Well, duh, he's a politician.

Whenever a politician calls for debate, that is code for one of two things:

1. "I realize I'm currently losing on this issue". If the public is on the politician's side already the LAST thing he wants is a debate, because debate is just a chance for the public to think "huh, the other guy's right".

2. "Go ahead and talk, it doesn't matter". Politicians also call for "debate" when the outcome has already been decided; supporters get the chance to toot their own horns and opponents get to blow off some steam".

Mark said...

I'd guess there's somewhere between a 20% and a 40% chance that Obama will be found out re: the IRS.

And yes, I'm assuming he was directly involved in the IRS harassment.

avwh said...

This PRISM and NSA stuff would be much less troubling if there was an iota of evidence that this Administration and its bureaucrats weren't corrupt, lying, Bill-of-Rights-breaking, spying, incompetent or all of the above.

Without Benghazi, the IRS, the AP spying, the false pretenses on naming Rosen a co-conspirator, and Holder ALREADY in contempt of Congress for Fast & Furious, they MIGHT still have had the good will among the MSM and low information voters to tough this out.

Too bad for them that all these scandals have taken away most of that.

C Stanley said...

What's galling is that he can't even come clean and explain his change of heart by admitting that things look a lot different from the inside. Instead he's blaming US for having been too immature five or six years ago to have this debate (which is demonstrably false since he was a big part of the debate.)

Revenant said...

When he got into office, he learned things (I suspect about the scope and imminence of the threats we face) that undid his previous criticism of the program.

I was willing to credit that story for a certain amount of time, but we've passed the ten-year mark and it is past its sell-by date.

With Bush you could argue "well, he is keeping it secret" because the Bushies didn't leak much about foiled plots. But the Obama administration has for four years now leaked all kinds of classified information about its efforts in the war on terror. Even if you can believe Bush foiled the next 9/11 and never told anyone, you cannot rationally believe that the Obama administration has. Jesus, Panetta blabbed the name of the SEAL Team 6 leader to a room full of a thousand people. You think he'd keep his yap shut about saving thousands of lives?

We're four years in. Either the stuff Obama was told about wasn't really imminent, or he wasn't actually told about anything, or he foiled the threat but neglected take credit. Anyone who thinks the third option is the most likely one is not, in my opinion, looking at the totality of the evidence.

gk1 said...

God how I wish Brit Hume was still doing the white house beat. Someone needs to ask the sun king "Why do you keep speaking in a passive voice about this surveillance? You, you Barak Obama have the power stop it at any time with the stroke of a pen." And I love this "lets have a conversation" crap coming from someone who really means "Shut up and do as you're told, its already been decided"

garage mahal said...

This is precisely why it matters whom we elect as President. This is a balancing act that we need to confide to the President, and because that is an awesome and extraordinary trust, we need to ensure that we are electing serious, sober, experienced, God-fearing men and women whom we can trust.

So, that said, do you trust Obama with this extraordinary trust we bestow upon him? I sure as fuck don't. A good leader in mind must say he or she must monitor everything because they have to, or they die fighting on a hill that nobody under their watch gets monitored at all. I really don't understand the "serious middle" position on this at all.

[And who runs for CiC in their first Senate term anyway?]

Skeptical Voter said...

Let's look at it this way Ann. He's lying all the time.
He's pleased with himself all the time.

This shouldn't be too hard for you.

DADvocate said...

Obama welcomes debate the way my ex welcomed marital counseling. As long as everything ends the way she wanted, it was great.

Tim said...

"[And who runs for CiC in their first Senate term anyway?]"

Great question, Garage. For once, I salute you.

A: A narcissistic asshole.

A1: With idiot voters.

SOJO said...

I assumed this stuff was going on since I saw "Enemy of the State" (pre 911 movie).

Fun Fact: The "bad guy" in Enemy of the State's government ID shows that his birthday is 9/11/40.

AReasonableMan said...

My guess is that Obama would like to 'evolve' on this issue in the same way he evolved on gay marriage. Let others create the heat so that he is forced to do what he already thinks is necessary. Rush Limbaugh is now his ally and the Republican senators their joint opponents. Its going to be an interesting debate. We know what the WSJ and NYT think, but a lot of people have still to take sides. I didn't think we were ever going to get to have a substantive debate on this issue but the signs are unexpectedly hopeful.

For me the uses and potential abuses of big data are an enormous threat to our current concept of the relationship between citizen and state. Currently most people simply don't understand how little privacy they currently have, given how much data and computing power are already available. The spotlight can be immediately turned on anyone and information that would have taken weeks or years to discover back in the 70's can be obtained in microseconds. I like tech and think genome sequencing is a miracle but technologies this powerful carry a cost. In different ways these technologies are as disruptive as the atom bomb, although rather than changing the relationship between states it is the relationship between state and citizen that is most affected.

kentuckyliz said...

We the people are Obama's PRISM bitch.

The Godfather said...

Simon, thank you for "thalweg", a great word with which I was not familiar.

Michael Haz said...

He's getting away with it. That's why he's so happy.

St. George said...

The 20 Traits of the Malignant Narcissist....

The pathological liar
The contract breaker
The high roller
The blame-game narcissist
The controller/manipulator
The substance abuser
Our "soul mate"
The brainwasher
The paranoid narcissist
The image maker
The emotional vacuum
The saintly narcissist
The calling-card narcissist

All Obama-y.

Don't yet know about....The rager, the thrill-seeker, the sadist, the sexual narcissist....

But we have another 3.5 years to find out...

Simon said...

C Stanley said...
"What's galling is that he can't even come clean and explain his change of heart by admitting that things look a lot different from the inside."

Agreed, but I think that we have to be clear-eyed enough to see that that's what he's really saying. He's not going to say that because he's a tool. That's a given. But that's what he's actually saying.

garage mahal said...
"So, that said, do you trust Obama with this extraordinary trust we bestow upon him?"

We have in fact entrusted Obama with this extraordinary trust. You may recall that some of us, your present interlocutor included, said that we should not. I didn't vote for him. I didn't support him. But we as a country didn't agree with I as a person. We'd better hope that he lives up to that trust, because it's paid for. It's a little late now for buyer's remorse, isn't it?

Revenant said...
"With Bush you could argue "well, he is keeping it secret" because the Bushies didn't leak much about foiled plots. But the Obama administration has for four years now leaked all kinds of classified information...."

That seems remarkably backwards, to my mind. I would have recalled the Bush administration as chronically leaky, and would regard the Obama administration as aggressively anti-leak. There haven't been many leaks, and this administration has aggressively pursued those which have happened. It's one of the few things I like about it, actually. At any rate, I can certainly believe that the administration is not telling us specifics, a fortiori because they have told us that this program has thwarted an attack. It doesn't have to be the size of 9/11. How many people died in Boston? Three? Is that not significant enough? Maybe if the administration had thwarted it and put out a press release saying "we've thwarted an attempt to plant a nail bomb at the finish line of the Boston marathon," we wouldn't think that such a big deal in the abstract, it'd be lost on page five, but when they actually happen, and we see how traumatic even a small attack is when it's carried out successfully, can we really insist that it takes a 9/11-scale event to justify the trivial privations involved in this program?

Dante said...

I have a friend who passed a polygraph at the NSA, but he lied. He won't tell me the lie, but the essential point he used to escape the lie was the "Broader Truth." That is, the Broader truth was that the question wasn't valid, as he was quite convinced of his principles.

Maybe Obama has principles, and so he can lie really well.

Fred Pissterling said...

"And I think it's interesting that there are some folks on the left but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it, who weren't very worried about it when it was a Republican president."

What is more interesting is that vast number of people on the left who were worried about it when it was a Republican president but are silent now, and that Obama didn't seem to be interested in pointing out that bit of hypocrisy among his base.

RonF said...

If he had really he could have had it as soon as he became President. So I figure he's lying.

Rose said...

"And I think it's interesting that there are some folks on the left but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it, who weren't very worried about it when it was a Republican president."

What is more interesting is that vast number of people on the left who were worried about it when it was a Republican president but are silent now, and that Obama didn't seem to be interested in pointing out that bit of hypocrisy among his base.


Someone is not playing the hypocrite, though they may be silent. Someone is risking their life to get this information out in the sunlight, so we can stop it. Someone knows there is something very very wrong, and maybe something worse to come if it is not stopped.

Whoever it is, pray for them, and honor them by standing up and taking a principled stand- no matter what your party for God's sake.

The voters allowed the Chicago Machine into the White House. Not only that, they gave them unfettered access, and stood guard outside the door while they raided the candy Store, unsealed all the divorce records and more.

'Datamining" US. US. Not the Tsarnaev's, who Russia warned them about. This administration is focused on Obama's enemies at the expense of everything else. US.

Douglas Winslow Cooper said...

Once the NSF detects a pattern, and if your communication is part of the pattern, and if they decipher or deduce one of the messages, then they know approximately yours as well, without ever having read it. Power corrupts...fearsomely. Privacy lost.

Dante said...

Watching this video gives me a new sense of the word "I" Obama likes to use so much. I think he uses "I" to make it seem as if these are his words, his thoughts, his understandings, and his actions.

The feeling I get from the speech is that he is simply an actor. He doesn't have a deep conviction on the ideas, he is simply expressing them in the best way he can: with some conviction, asserting he is involved, but I don't think he is.

Rose said...

It's more than just deducing a pattern. Let's say they have the phone records. And someone calls into Rush or Levin - and the administration doesn't like what they say, or - as happens sometimes, someone calls in to blow a whistle, give some facts that aren't known - they can then triangulate the phone call, and find out who it is. You will never even know what happens to the guy. Maybe he gets fired. Maybe he gets killed.

Think about how many reports of people - Like Woodward - saying they've been threatened.

And now... Glenn Greenwald, the UK Guardian journalist who helped break two major stories on government surveillance, told CNN's Piers Morgan that the Obama administration has been "bullying and threatening" anyone "who thinks about exposing it or writing about it or even doing journalism" about the subject, Business Insider reported.

Revenant said...

My guess is that Obama would like to 'evolve' on this issue in the same way he evolved on gay marriage.

That doesn't make much sense.

Obama "evolved" to support gay marriage right when it achieved 51% support with voters. "The government shouldn't the entire American public" has had majority support since, er, 1776? Which is why Obama said he was against it when running for office.

He spoke against gay marriage for cynical political advantage. There's no such advantage to gain now, if only because he won't be running for office again.

Phil 3:14 said...

So its no longer a conversation, but a debate.

JAL said...

Notice he can't find an Executive Order when we really need one?

JAL said...

Sooo so glad this nifty program tagged those bombing brothers who had phone calls and visits to Chechnya and environs, and expired paperwork as well as Nidal Hassan's internet chats with al-Awlaki, a business card with "Son of Allah" and a PowerPoint about infidels.

Makes me feel 100% safe, thank you so much.

Signed,
One of the folks

traditionalguy said...

Obam is all about transforming American life into what he says we want and just don't know we want it.

Sp he secretly destroys what we have had and replaces it with the better stuff...like an end to carbon based electrical energy, and an end to military hegemon status, and an end to our Judeo-Christian culture, and an end to our dollar valued financial assets, and an end to our gun possession by serfs/citizens.

He doesn't ask for much back except our sincere thanks for his secret genius moves after he has finished us off.

Quaestor said...

On 6/7/13, at 6:19 PM Bender said it all.

Bravo.

Rabel said...

You can, and should, listen to the whole answer here, beginning at 11:30.

He may be lying about how he feels, but he's not "lying" about the details. He separates the issue into two different programs - "telephone calls" which is Verizon/metadata and "email, internet" which is PRISM. This seems to verify that PRISM is real, if there was any question left.

He then makes a series of very carefully worded statements which excuse the "modest encroachments" of the Verizon program, but only very briefly discusses PRISM by claiming that it does not prey on US citizens. He defends PRISM only by confusing it with Verizon. I think they're in trouble with PRISM.

And, does an oral communication through the internet, such as a Skype call, count as a "telephone call" that they're not listening to?

Michael K said...

After this week's news, I spent an hour watching "Absence of Malice" tonight and watching Wilford Brimley stating what the Justice Department should do. It was refreshing after the week we've had.

Sort of like flushing the toilet.

David said...

Narcissist

David said...

Narcissist

Methadras said...

I think at this stage the game is over. We are now officially in the permanent surveillance state. I don't know or see any other way out of it. The tentacles of government have pierced everything. I don't even think the japs are immune.

MayBee said...

So nobody here thinks Islamic terrorism is so special that it is the only target here, right?

This administration always notes *other* forms of extremism when a bombing happens. There is no way they aren't interested in people they label domestic extremists.

MayBee said...

Is this how they found the (wrong) ricin guy's Facebook postings that matched the letters?

MayBee said...

If the threats are so bad we must have all of our communications monitored, we should hear that.

We shouldn't be hearing the war is over, the AUMF should be repealed, and alQaeda has been decimated if things are still so dangerous we must have an unprecedented surveillance state.

el polacko said...

al queda has been decimated and is on the run and the war on terror is over (if it ever really existed at all)...so that's why we need to spy on all american citizens because, y'know...uhhh...ummm...
terrorism and stuff. besides, it's congress and bush's fault anyway. i welcome this debate but i'm not here for an all-day press conference, people!

stlcdr said...

It's not a debate when the government goes and does what they like, or are 'asked' to do.

HA said...

A sign of maturity would be abandoning the multicultural fairy tail and recognizing that Islam is totalitarian political ideology incompatible with Western democracy.

Islam has used violence to impose its will upon us. We've shredded our Constitution to accommodate it and now the DOJ openly threatens to prosecute violations of Islamic blasphemy law.

We are in this position because of our childish refusal to wage an ideological battle against Islam. This is a sign of many things, but maturity isn't one of them.

Bruce Hayden said...

US mail being photographed (front and back of letters) an likely scanned and OCR'ed into text.

This, per se, is not all that worrisome, but maybe the integration and data mining that this may be used with is.

The following is from my less than perfect memory. The USPS has long (maybe at least a decade) taken electronic photos of the fronts and backs of envelopes. They do this in order to efficiently sort and route letters. This is a massive and complicated problem, made worse by the nature of the addressing of letters and that their machines work at such high speeds sorting letters that some get damaged in process.

Fairly early on in the process, the front of the letters are photographed, and then OCR'd. Top priority are bar codes, and then after that, zip codes, the longer the better. If the computers cannot recognize the address on the envelope, the photograph is routed to wet ware (live person) who keys in the zip, etc. If the zip was missing from the front, it is added. And, a second bar code is typically added to the back, but this one has even more information than zip+4, including, if I remember correctly, source processing center, batch#, sequence# in batch, and enough information w/i the zip code to get the letter to a specific house. This is the primary bar code used for routing letters through the system. Thus, no surprise that it is photographed, so that the routing bar code can be OCR'd and used. Front is repeatedly also scanned, in case the back cannot be read, etc. (I prosecuted USPS patents and argued that scanning both front and back was novel, since prior art only showed scanning the front).

What is interesting to me here is that the USPS retained the pictures of the fronts (and maybe backs) of envelopes throughout processing of letters for backup, along with digitized routing information (the images were for backup, with the digital routing information used primarily). If something happened during processing, they could still figure out what was originally on the front of the envelope and could get the letter where it was supposed to go. But, back when the systems were being implemented, disk storage was an issue, so they went through some work making sure that they kept the information just long enough to be useful, but not much longer. So, usually within a day of delivery, most of the images (and, yes, digitized routing information from the images, since that was what was preferably used throughout processing) would be discarded.

But, the cost of storing information has dropped significantly, and it may make sense to the NSA, FBI, etc. to grab at least the digitized addressing information and maybe even the images, from the USPS mail processing system that they had already captured. And, keep in mind that you do not have a legal expectation of privacy with where you send letters, just what is in them. So, there probably weren't any legal hurdles encountered, if they indeed did start collecting this information.

Note that I don't like the thought of the feds archiving and data mining this information, but figure that it is low in priority as to what can be done about it.

Rusty said...

Debate is the way Obama isolates his enemies.

Mel said...

Obama evolved on gay marriage after he signed the PPACA and implementation was under way. One of the reasons gays wanted "marriage equality" was so that Tim could be on Tom's insurance or Lily could be on Lisa's. The major reason most families who liked their insurance in 2010 didn't get to keep it is that the PPACA allows - nearly insists - employer sponsored plans to require spouses to carry insurance from their own employer if it's offered to them.
I am still not sure if I think that was a dig at the traditional family because traditional families tend to be more conservative or a backdoor way to keep the federal government from having to insure homosexual spouses, many of whom have engaged in sexual behaviors that increase their health risks exponentially, or some combination of both. Either way for medical insurance purposes, my family is not my husband of 21 years, our kids and myself; it's now our kids and me. (dental & vision benefits - which are much less expensive - are still for all of us through my work)

My point with all that in this conversation is that whatever the federal government is doing - like any other corporate entity - it is doing in its own best interest. My husband said when the Patriot Act came up, we shouldn't do this, it violates due process and gives the government too much power. As soon as Bush signed it, D. said we would regret it. I didn't pay that much attention, more fool me. Over the last 11 years, I've learned that my husband was right and so I now take the time to learn what Congress is debating, make my opinion known and vote accordingly - about TARP, taxation, health care, immigration and everything else. Government of by and for the people is only possible if the people are paying attention. Our government has taken too much power while we weren't looking...it's going to be hard work if we want to take it back.

Kansas City said...

I think President Obama is a very deceitful man and a very poor president. He is a far left self promoter who has masterfully worked the system.

However, he also is often masterful as providing answers that seem smart and reasonable, but are either nothing at all or pure deception. This answer was mostly nothing at all, but it was combined with the deception that he welcomes a debate. That is something the people say all the time when the last thing they want is a legitimate debate.

I've also always thought there is something about the way Obama talks that is just pleasing to the normal ear and a great asset to him politically. It sort of lulls a person away from any critical analysis of the actual words.

On the other hand, when he is asked about specific facts, I think it is relatively easy to tell when he is lying. For example, back when he was confronted about Reverend Wright and asked about whether he had heard the incendiary sermons, he claimed that he was not there on those "particular" days. Any discerning person watching him could easily tell he was lying. I also think it is relatively easy to see that he is lying when he did about Benghazi. When he speaks in general terms, it is hard to determine lies (and they may not be lies, just bs), but when he talks about specific facts it is much easier to see when he is lying.

Moneyrunner said...

Ann Althouse is a woman. Her comment about watching an Obama video clip is a woman’s reaction. She’s looking of visual cues, for facial tells, for hesitancy in speaking. She probably does that when she’s talking with her husband or her female friends, because that’s what women do. And people who can speak with apparent sincerity, no matter if they are speaking the biggest bullshit, and do it with a straight face, convince her.

Men, on the other hand, listen to the words. They listen for inconsistencies, for untruths, for self-congratulation, for straw men arguments and, as Obama does again in this speech, blaming Bush.
That’s disappointing in a law professor, but then she did vote for Obama.

bardseyeview said...

It's an old truism that not one piece of documentary evidence links Hitler to the (Jewish and non-Jewish, about 5-6 million each) holocaust.

There won't be any fingerprints, and even if there were, this guy will never resign under any circumstances, and Rush is right in saying that our first dark-skinned president cannot be impeached and convicted.

bardseyeview said...

It's an old truism that not one piece of documentary evidence links Hitler to the (Jewish and non-Jewish, about 5-6 million each) holocaust.

There won't be any fingerprints, and even if there were, this guy will never resign under any circumstances, and Rush is right in saying that our first dark-skinned president cannot be impeached and convicted.

Jay said...

I welcome debate!

First, you can't have 100% security and 100% privacy and zero inconvenience.

So there!

C Stanley said...

It's an old truism that not one piece of documentary evidence links Hitler to the (Jewish and non-Jewish, about 5-6 million each) holocaust.

That's interesting and I don't think I've ever heard it before.

In a darkly humorous way I'm picturing Hitler coming out of his bunker and pulling an Obama:
"i don't blame people for being outraged. i'm outraged too. I learned about this holocaust from the news reports, just like the rest of you."

RebeccaH said...

"Trade offs involved". Yeah, our freedom for his power.

Kansas City said...

You underestimate Ann. She didn't vote for Obama a second time, did she?

Anyway, I think there is room for Ann or anyone else to both listen to the words critically and also focus on the physical tells that indicate deception, insincerity and other things.

Marty said...

Ann,

If his lips are moving, assume he's lying--you will be right far more often than you will be wrong.

Judith said...

A sure tip-off he's lying is when this sophisticated Harvard Law educated constitutional scholar begins using the word "folks."

Porkopolis said...

Perhaps it's Duping Delight

C Stanley said...

His lip biting happens every time he mentions privacy and tradeoffs. What is that about? He's either lying or holding back according to the body language.

Moneyrunner said...

C. Stanley: that’s great! I’m going to steal that: “If only Hitler had known.”

Kansas City: I’m not underestimating Ann. I’m saying she’s a woman and reacts like a woman. Her comments relate strictly to the visual images and don’t allude to the fact that he sets up straw men, lied about the past, blamed Bush and slaps himself on the back, all in just a few sentences. I don’t frankly care if he did it while crouching behind the podium using hand puppets. I listened to what he said, not how he looked saying it. Oh, and voting for Obama the first time shows that she is easily duped.

C Stanley said...

Moneyrunner:

There's always these too...

"it was a few rogue SS officers in our Auschwitz camp."

"Mistakes were made."

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Jews What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Strelnikov said...

Given that we have Woody Allen thread going elsewhere, I'll just quote "Anne Hall": "What an asshole."

David Davenport said...

A sign of maturity would be abandoning the multicultural fairy tail and recognizing that Islam is totalitarian political ideology incompatible with Western democracy.

A sign of reality would be abandoning the normal Presidency fairy tale and recognizing that the man sitting on the White House throne is Muslim sympathizer incompatible with Western democracy.

///////////

It's an old truism that not one piece of documentary evidence links Hitler to the (Jewish and non-Jewish, about 5-6 million each) holocaust.

My understanding is that "final solution" started out as a euphemism used by Nazi big wigs such as Heinrich Himmler, and that A.H. expressed his specific intentions only privately and verbally to a few confidants such as Himmler.

Similarly, one doubts that any written orders signed by BHO will be found concerning domestic spying, IRS abuses, or Libya.