It Has Already Been Proven: We Cannot Trust Judges To Approve Security Decisions In The Age Of Obama

The embarrassing NSA leaks that revealed that pretty much every American is being treated as a terrorist confirm a few things about liberalism and Obama: you can’t trust either one any more than you could trust Stalinism.

Allow me to go back to something I said way, way back in 2010 as we were greeted with the outrage of Obama’s way of administering “security” by refusing to focus on actual terrorists and instead treat EVERYBODY like a terrorist:

Common sense is like rocket science to moral idiots.  And Barry Hussein, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and everyone else he’s brought on board is a genuine moral idiot.

Liberals self-righteously tell us that profiling Muslims by race would be un-American.  Because “American” to them means that we must instead treat EVERYONE like a terrorist.  A flight attendant with a prosthetic breast is as much a security threat as a 23 year-old Muslim male just arriving from Yemen.  To single anyone out for scrutiny would make sense, and we won’t have that as long as Barry Hussein is our emperor.  Because in Obama’s liberal America we stand like sheep in front of porno-scanners that take naked pictures of us, and then we stand like sheep while we’re groped by professional government gropers.

They don’t want to violate anybody’s rights.  Far better to violate EVERYBODY’S rights instead.

Remember the ecstatic Newsweek headline, “We Are All Socialists Now”???  Socialism invariably ends up treating the people like the enemy.  Think Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with their Berlin Wall and all the machine gun emplacements to gun down anyone trying to get out.

If you don’t think it’s bad enough now as it is, the Tits and Ass Agency wants to unionize, which would make them even more intrusive and impervious than they already are.

“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war” — Winston Churchill, commenting on Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” signing of the Munich Agreement with Hitler

That’s what we did when we voted for Obama: we chose dishonor and we chose a war we could not win because we are too stupid to even fight the real enemy.

So, here we are, a few years later.  And what is Obama doing?  He’s treating every single American like a terrorist and eavesdropping on over a billion American conversations every single day.

When I’m right, you can always count on me to be right.

The NSA leaks merely prove that everything I said about Obama’s policy of refusing to profile the people and groups most likely to be terrorists necessitated treating every single American like a terrorist instead.

Don’t be angry.  You voted for it, you dumbass.  You voted for Obama.  You voted to be treated like a terrorist and have all of your calls and internet traffic monitored.  You wouldn’t have it any other way.

Now that we’ve dealt with this NSA crap in general, let’s focus on an important specific that Obama loves to assure us: don’t worry, your rights are being protected, because, after all, judges have to approve every single one of these gross violations of your 4th Amendment rights.

Well, there are a couple of things wrong with that.  First of all, there’s this from a former FISA court judge:

Robertson told a federal oversight board that Congress’ 2008 reform meant that “the court is now approving programmatic surveillance,” offering that “I don’t think that is a judicial function.”

Robertson also questioned whether the NSA’s global surveillance programs court should be given its legal basis by a court that “has turned into something like an administrative agency,” adding that the secret court is flawed because only the government’s side is heard. […]

Robertson said he was ‘‘frankly stunned’’ by a recent Times report that FISA court rulings had created a new body of law broadening the ability of the NSA to use its surveillance programs to target not only terrorists but suspects in cases involving espionage, cyberattacks and weapons of mass destruction.

Liberals LOVE big “government programs,” and they are ALL ABOUT “programmatic” crap.  I mean, if they didn’t we never would have had the unmitigated disaster that ObamaCare has turned out to be (just like we SAID it would be, btw).

But this leaves out something even more fundamental.  It leaves out how treacherous, how blatantly dishonest Barack Obama and his thug administration has turned out to be.

Let’s remember Eric Holder, Obama’s “Injustice Department” lawthug was when he found a way to violate the 1st Amendment and go after a Fox News journalist.

What did Holder do?  He went to a judge to get a warrant to snoop on James Rosen.  The first judge said, “You can’t do that.  That would be fascist and unconstitutional.”  So Holder went to a second judge.  And the second judge said, “You can’t do that.  You’d be a Nazi to do something like that.”  And so Holder went to a third judge.

The third judge approved it.

Let’s say that he refused to.  Do you honestly think Holder would have said, “Well, three strikes and I’m out”???  No way, Jose.  He would have kept on judge-shopping until he found a judge who would sign off for him.

Now, the warrant that that judge signed off on was FILLED with lies that alleged that Rosen was basically a terrorist who was just about to flee the country and there was abundant evidence of his crimes.  None of that was true.  Basically, Holder lied like the rabid weasel that he is to get a warrant approved.  And then he cited the fact that he had lied to the judge as his rationale for why he was not lying to Congress when he said, “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”  He literally cited the fact that he had lied to a federal judge (the warrant Holder signed off on very much indicated that the FBI planned to prosecute James Rosen) as his grounds for arguing that he had not lied to Congress.

Therein lies your problem with the whole “judge” thing.  An awful lot of judges are, to put it politely, turds.  And finding a judge who will do what you want is kind of like walking blindfolded through a small yard inhabited by a dozen Rottweilers.  It won’t take you very long before you miraculously end up “finding” a big giant turd.  Only Eric Holder wasn’t blindfolded: he was actively TRYING to find a turd.

So pardon me for not being very reassured that Obama has to go before a judge (or a second judge, or a third judge) to get his fascism approved.

We now know for a FACT that Obama has recklessly and tyrannically abused government power.  He has used the IRS, the FBI, the EPA and other out-of-control government agencies to punish his political opponents.  And in fact, he’s done it way, WAY beyond the level to which the last president to try that kind of crap (that would be Nixon) ever came CLOSE to trying.

Obama is a power-mad child with a massive bureaucracy to use as toys and an entire nation to punish if he doesn’t get his way.  And this crap is out of control.

Hypocrite liberals would have been hysterically screaming in the streets if it had been revealed that Bush had been pulling a TENTH of this crap.  But Obama is doing it, so it’s okay.

It aint okay.

New York Times Rips Obama on Character

When the New York Times rebukes the most liberal senator in Congress and the Democratic nominee for president, you know he’s got a problem with his base.

It is painfully common knowledge that Barack Obama has shifted dramatically in his policies to position himself as a liberal-moderate. Every politician tends to shift policies during the course of a campaign, but Barack Obama has reversed himself more quickly and more dramatically than any candidate in modern history (even John Kerry, whose “I voted for that bill before I voted against it” remark defined him as a serial flip-flopper). And Obama’s reversals are particularly glaring given his arrogant, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, smarmy self-serving rhetoric that he would be different and above it all when it came to such political tactics.

His abandonment of his public campaign finance pledge by itself proves that Barack Obama is not a candidate for the people, but rather a candidate for Barack Obama.

Many of his reversals have come at the cost of liberals, who want the most liberal Senator in the country to become the most liberal President in American history. They feel betrayed. So perhaps it should come as no suprise that the quintessentially liberal New York Times would take Obama to task for his betrayals.

I cite the entire July 4, 2008 New York Times editorial in its entirety:

July 4, 2008
Editorial
New and Not Improved

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Too late: Obama has already begun his maneuvering to reverse himself on the biggest “big question: of all; Obama has backed off his previously iron-clad pledge to cut-and-run in Iraq within 16 months. Hillary Clinton – who had a more moderate and cautious approach to Iraq that hurt her in the liberal-oriented Democratic primaries, claimed that Obama would do exactly what he is in fact doing now. Obama said time and time again that “I will bring the troops home in 2009,” but he is now hedging behind the disclaimer that he will only do so with the military commanders’ blessing.

Obama promised he would pull out of Iraq within 16 months dozens of times without caveats when he faced a liberal electorate; now he is deceitfully “refining” his position in order to pander to the more conservative overall electorate. John McCain, by contrast, has been absolutely firm and absolutely clear on his Iraq position even when it cost him politically. He publicly and repeatedly urged President Bush to send more troops into Iraq in a surge campaign when the situation in Iraq was difficult and vulnerable, and when even Republicans were beginning to waver in their commitment to Iraq.

The New York Times makes it quite clear that they wanted this guy to win. They thought he was different, but he is revealing that “hope” and “change” was never anything more than a rhetorical ploy.

I would argue that Barack Obama truly is different: he is the most cynical presidential candidate in history. The man who got his start in politics by stabbing Alice Palmer in the back to become a state senator is revealing his true character. This man – who used byzantine legal tactics and insider personal relationships to invalidate the voters’ will and keep a candidate off the ballot who had previously won her district with 87% of the vote, and who literally threw his own grandmother under the bus for the sake of political cover – is showing that he will betray anyone and anything to obtain personal power.

The Latin description for Obama is Hypocriticus Maximus. I have seen that in this man with crystal clarity ever since the day his church’s incredibly radical theology was revealed. Liberals and Democrats have repeatedly complained about “guilt by association,” but tell me when you have ever seen a major candidate for president ever having had such “associations.” And when these associations are exposed, he dismisses one longstanding friendship and relationship after another as he continues his climb to the top.

I use the word “cynical” – which the New York Times itself uses to characterize Obama – because only an incredibly cynical man would attack the modern political apparatus even as he uses that same apparatus to maximum personal advantage; only the most cynical candidate would claim to be so different from any politician who has ever come before when he is anything but.