Basic State of the Question on Obama Spying on You

He is, as ever, as surprised as you are to discover what he’s been doing.  In related news, Obama awakens with jolt to discover he is president.  Claims First Lady put something in his drink.

As for you little people, the Administration explains, “Shut up“.

Besides, the folks spying on you are your friends and neighbors, which is supposed to be soothing and not make you think of Stalin’s USSR  or Orwell’s Oceania at all.

So even though the erection of the police/surveillance state has not stopped any terrorism and vastly more people have died from traffic fatalities than from The Terrorists[TM] we must continue to be stampeded into police/surveillance state or Something Awful will happen.

Pay no attention to the state agents who openly talk about murdering an American citizen who brought their activities to light.  These are the defenders of justice and they only fantasize about lawless murder when they really need to.

Meanwhile, our God King has the best ethics money can buy looking into things and will certainly not lie to you.  After all, he’s a politician!

Now let us, like true Americans, return to celebrating the Nativity of the Bride of the Lord Obama on Earth and renew our pledge to be His Servants:

  • Dave G.

    I share the concerns and generally agree. However, the one thing I’ll disagree with is the ‘more people have died in ___________ than in terrorist attacks’ argument. I get the point. You don’t want to respond to a burglar with a nuclear missile. Proportional response and all. But something about that phrase doesn’t sit well with me. As if it should be more than just percentages and stats. That there’s importance beyond the number of causualties in a given event. By noon on September 11, 2001, we had no clue how many had died, but we were pretty upset about the events and even felt something should be done about them. Again, I get it. But I also get the feeling that there’s something missing or we’re saying more than we should when we say that.

    • The Deuce

      I think the difference is that car accidents and the like are not trying to demand submission or terrify us into adopting policies and attitudes that they want. To repeatedly fail to respond to terrorist attacks, which are direct attacks on civilians to achieve some goal, is to invite more and ultimately to submit to them.

      • Dave G.

        I get that. I’m still uncomfortable with the phrase, if not the sentiment. For many reasons, not the least being that even if terrorism cost a hundred times more deaths, would we then be OK with all of these policies? It really doesn’t mean much if you think about it, and it could mean more than we intend.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    Does the president know anything that’s going on? Every time something comes to light, he pleads ignorance. Is the fact that he has no idea what’s happening under his own nose supposed to increase our confidence in his leadership? He just looks clueless.

    • Stu

      Looks?

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        Okay, he is clueless. Yet you’d think he’d not want that to show; that he’d at least put up a veneer of confidence and control. Instead, he’s content to let it look like he has no control over what his administration is doing.

        • The Deuce

          His does. His idea of confidence and control is when he announces that he’s going to rule by royal decree, avoiding any contact with Congress or reflection on his own failings.

    • The Deuce

      He must know what’s going on. After all, he knows how to achieve universal health care by himself, as well as economic equality without sacrificing productivity. That wouldn’t be possible if he didn’t know almost everything!

      It’s just been a bad run of luck that the one or two things in the whole wide world that he doesn’t know have happened to come to light. And the fact that they’ve all been about what his own administration is doing just *proves*
      that he’s been spending so much time knowing everything about everything in the world that he hasn’t had time left over for his own administration. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

  • Stu

    Mark,

    I think what you are missing is that it’s not his fault. How is the Commander-in-Chief supposed to know such things?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE

  • The Deuce

    The thing that gets me is, Obama is clearly not interested in the “War on Terror” and is not trying to win it. He’s not interested in what goes on in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Beghazi, or anywhere else, except to the extent that it affects his public image. So we’ve left just enough troops in Afghanistan for him to keep up appearances and not look like a wimp, but we’ve left them twisting in the wind with no objective and inadequate protection, so that their death toll is rising.

    And yet, even though he’s not interested in the WOT overseas, he’s still *very* interested in using it as justification for subjecting us all to his Big Brother domestic surveillance state. Curious that.

    • S. Murphy

      No, he wants to win it through 3-letter agencies and special forces, vice regular military. Cheaper, fewer American casualties – that’s the theory.
      The interest on both sides of the aisle in solidifying the digital Panopticon (in which we can all participate w our phone-cameras) is, I suspect, caused by a deep-seated terror of letting another attack succeed – ‘not on my watch, whatever it takes.’ The fact that home-grown losers like the Tsarnaevs, or legal visitors, like the 9/11 hijackers, can kill or injure large numbers of people without necessarily calling much attention to themselves beforehand, leads to the fear of letting up on internal surveillance, Constitution notwithstanding. The terrorists *have* already won. The real dangers to civil liberties are invisible to those focused on public safety.

  • Andy

    I think this is an example of no oversight plus the general trend I have seen in the US for military or para-miitary responses to many activities. This started before 9/11 and has escalated since. Obama like all other politicians is looking for plausible deniability, hardly a courageous position, but the one that now dominated the political class – just as it dominate the oligarchs. I am not excusing Obama, merely saying we as a populace allow this because we buy into 5 second sound bites, we allow the media to BS us with platitudes, and are more interested in the Super Bowl then anything else right now.

  • Stu

    Here is the bottom line.

    The man can’t lead. Never could.

  • AnsonEddy

    I think one of the things most upsetting to me is this new revelation that it is my friends and neighbors spying on me. And after they just put up that really tall privacy fence so we wouldn’t see them in their hot tub! What gall! I’m of half a mind to go over there right now and have this out once and for all with them.

  • $16977560

    Funny. When GWB was in office, a lot of my Right-Wing friends (not “conservatives” — a different breed) were perfectly happy for the gummint to be spying on folks. In the name of Freedom. And Security. And Prosperity. And in the names of other secular gods I’ve now forgotten. But it was OK. Because it was being done by a Republican (good) and not buy a Democrat (evil).
    — Full disclosure, I am a “conservative”, and an “independent”. And, I don’t like either of the Houses, neither Montague nor Capulet. A pox on them both!
    Mark, you should, if you are going to be an Honest partisan, tell just how what BHO is doing is any different from what GWB did. Including “signing statements”, and telling the little people to shut up. (Dick Cheney did that, I recall.)
    It didn’t start with Obama, and it didn’t even start with Bush II. It is endemic to “the system”… regardless of which Party is temporarily in power.
    So, please quit the FauxNews/MessNBC games. If you haven’t noticed, this whole country is hurting, and the time for silly slamdunking is over. You do not help by making red-meat attacks, when you know full well that they are not conducive to changing anything. All they do is to confirm the already convinced.
    But, maybe the contention is profitable, so you don’t really care what happens to the USA? Then Prove it!

    • AnsonEddy

      New here?

      • said she

        Clearly!

        • $16977560

          Quite right. Nor, obviously, should I stay when the door is open.
          Bye, y’all. Have a good time.

          • said she

            Wow. It’s not like we berated you, accused you of not caring about our country, and then demanded that you prove something. We just pointed out that you are singing to the choir… and you took offense?!?

            • S. Murphy

              Divided by a common internet…

      • Dave G.

        Heh. That was my thought when I read this.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X