Obama administration says NSA phone snooping is Not Unconstitutional & House to vote on NSA

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Confused. If huge sums of money in the form of contributions arent the driver for their position on the issue, then could this mean they are towing the party line in order to get re-elected? Or worse, that their constituency wants them to vote the way they do?

Thus, the insidious and odious surveillance systems gained a reprieve to continue their 'sucking away' of American individual privacy. Some of the entreaties made against the amendment show total disregard to constitutional rights, considering them irrelevant and redundant simply out of a self-perceived opinion. Perhaps, more with regard to what personal benefit the representative would receive voting 'no'?

From the BBC report:

NSA director Gen Keith Alexander held separate, closed-door sessions with Republicans and Democrats on Tuesday to lobby them against the bill.

So, this is how modern democracy works in America. Closed-door sessions to entice and tempt, to threaten and perhaps, blackmail potential 'aye' votes to 'no' votes? Be under no illusion, every single 'no' vote was a vote against constitutional rights and against every American. There's no doubt about it, it's there for anyone to see in black and white.

The American public must not dither and faff about, they must not whinge and wail about how helpless they feel, or how their country has been snatched from them by unscrupulous individuals using and abusing their election to public service for their own gain from the purses of defence contractors. Follow the money and you uncover the ambition of these political Iago's.

Mike Rogers of Michigan:

Have we forgotten what happened on September 11?

How utterly disingenuous can a politician get? Has he forgotten the founding principles for...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

...regardless of whatever perceived enemy or threat?

No matter what enemy attacks you, no matter what threat keeps you up all night with fear, you do not alter in the slightest way the cherished rights of the people. You do not argue for a balance on security and freedom, as freedoms should never be on the table for debate, they are sacred and sacrosanct and untouchable.

If you were willing to lay down your life to achieve and found a country that enshrined personal freedom, personal liberty, personal privacy as inalienable and morally just, and from them develop a judiciary that is to be their guardian and protector, from whence does the idea arrive that they are now currency to be devalued when under threat?

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and declared war on America, did the then incumbent government instigate an apparatus of surveillance upon all Americans? No! Did they attack constitutional rights of all Americans? No! Rightly or wrongly, they interred Japanese-Americans, only.

Benjamin Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I take it then that Rogers and all the other un-American pacifiers to terrorism are not fans of Franklin. It's simple really, when you attack the freedoms and liberties of your compatriots, you become the terrorist!

good thing all that time, effort, and money was spent on the 2nd amendment, now the government legally can search anything of yours personally without a warrant. no backround checks are required, when they don't need them to find out if you own a gun. they now legally, can spy on everything you say, or do.

now, posts on ATS regarding how you feel about the government, business, politician, or any person can now be recorded and used against you at a later date, and, it is up to you to prove your innocence.

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Confused. If huge sums of money in the form of contributions arent the driver for their position on the issue, then could this mean they are towing the party line in order to get re-elected? Or worse, that their constituency wants them to vote the way they do?

I would say that the donations, although not incredibly large, would be a flag that that particular individual was approached/courted by lobbyists representing those firms. Now I don't know much about political lobbying but I do know what it's like to have an oil company courting you in a business fashion. I imagine, from what little glimpses I have seen in lobbying activities, that it is most likely very similar. It could include parties, lunches/dinners out at an expensive restaurant, or seeing a sports game in a box suite. Having been on the receiving end of that kind of courtship, I know what it's like. Galas held where you receive an award and are asked to give a speech, while having your elbow held as execs escort you around the room because you are the VIP--the target. Or the box suite with just you, your family and them where you get all the hot dogs and any other food or beverage you can imagine plus warmed blankets. Or, if they still don't get you, a cordoned off section at a music festival with tons of great food and surrounded by marketing rep cheesecake (all male in my case--gave my husband at the time issues).. It's all geared to make you feel like the most important person on the planet. From what reports of lobbying activities that I've seen, it's exactly like that but upped even higher.
lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov...

Any one of those people that received money from one of these defense contractors can be presumed to have been heavily courted by the contractors and/or lobbyists. Whereas the money, in most cases, isn't substantial, it does act as a red flag for lobbying activities having taken place. In terms of totals spent just on campaign contributions, at the first 50 in the list, over $220k in individual campaign contributions exists. Toss in contributions to

Northrup Grumman has spent almost $4 million in contributions. In 2012, they spent over $17 million in lobbying activities. So yes, the individual campaign contributions are going to look like pocket change as the lobbying activity is where it's plush. If you stay on their good side, they'll stick to the pocket change because, as long as you're in, you'll be the VIP. This is probably why Kingston receives such large contributions from these guys--because he's not "in".
www.opensecrets.org...

That help put it into perspective a little? You keep them hungry because keeping them hungry keeps them next to you and standing next to you can be a hell of a life.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


What else would we expect

the pathological liar; compulsive narcissist; Destroyer in Chief; Chief globalist Constitution & Bill of Rights destroying stooge to say?

Not that he's more than a few orders of magnitude different from the same sort before him.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I have done consulting with govt agencies. They were not even allowed to let me buy them lunch. And I wasnt even trying to butter them up, just professional courtesy, lunch at Subway. No, I'm not cheap, it was the closest place and we were in a hurry.

Shouldn't be any different for lobbyist and politicians. Greed and lavishness corrupts.

Originally posted by jimmyx
good thing all that time, effort, and money was spent on the 2nd amendment, now the government legally can search anything of yours personally without a warrant. no backround checks are required, when they don't need them to find out if you own a gun. they now legally, can spy on everything you say, or do.

According to Ron Wyden, thats what the secret interpretation of the patriot act does. Pretty sad state of affairs...

Originally posted by snarky412
reply to post by Nephalim

 

We are living in a 'Virtual Prison'

We've been in a virtual prison ever since the invention of the paper dollar.

reply to post by mikegrouchy

While we are grumbling about the meta-data,
they are tricking us into implicitly approving of their secret courts.

Secret courts are as un-American as anything I can think of.

Someone's paying attention...

Sadly, not much we can do about it....

Going by the letter of the law (since phones weren't around back then), it isn't unconstitutional, but it sure as hell violates the SPIRIT and INTENTION of the document. Just one more reason to hate this administration you folks voted for.... (because I sure as hell didn't vote for it).

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

I have done consulting with govt agencies. They were not even allowed to let me buy them lunch. And I wasnt even trying to butter them up, just professional courtesy, lunch at Subway.

No, I'm not cheap, it was the closest place and we were in a hurry.

Shouldn't be any different for lobbyist and politicians. Greed and lavishness corrupts.

I totally agree. I'm an accountant and, due to accounting scandals such as Enron, Worldcom et al, there are significant rules in place for maintaining objectivity and independence within the AICPA--not just in fact but in appearance. I personally think that the same standards should take place for our congressman as well except in situations being sociable has a diplomatic purpose. Contractors and lobbyists should be allowed to contact our congressmen but at arm's length. However, getting such a thing to pass is improbable because it would take Congress to make it a law. In terms of agencies, if you recall just a couple years back, there were massive scandals with the Minerals Management Service and the oil industry in terms of corruption. www.cnn.com... There's also been several cases in the Supreme Court where a justice probably should've recused themselves for conflict of interest but did not as well. SEC had some trouble as well with Bernie Madoff though they've adopted some new rules to try to correct some of the problems. Arm's length really should be the rule across the board. If auditors of a 10k for a company have to do it, then surely the same thing should be applicable to something as fundamentally important as our legislative branch.