George W. Obama
The Obama administration has lost The Huffington Post and The New York Times. When that happens, you know some scary stuff is going down. Hope and Change is officially dead.

Today is bittersweet for those of us who have warned about the dangers of an ever-expanding federal government for years. There is no schadenfreude when it is your own country that ultimately suffers the consequences of a slow motion Orwellian nightmare.

How sad is it that a foreign newspaper had to break it to us that the Obama administration decided it needed to monitor millions of Americans’ phone calls who have done nothing wrong? How long have American media outlets known about this, and how long have they sat on their hands while innocent people were under surveillance without knowing it?

It is little solace that the New York Times has finally admitted what conservatives have been saying for years — that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government that can take it all away (i.e., your individual liberties):

Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights. …

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers. …

A senior administration official quoted in The Times online Thursday afternoon about the Verizon order offered the lame observation that the information does not include the name of any caller, as though there would be the slightest difficulty in matching numbers to names. …

The defense of this practice offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching, was absurd. She said on Thursday that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future.

Indeed, massive legislation that fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the State should be read and fully understood before it is passed (and it would have been nice if The New York Times had applied its own logic to the passage of Obamacare). However, perhaps most frightening of all is Sen. Feinstein, who is now in the business of pre-crime. Who knew that ‘Minority Report’ would cease to be science fiction in such a short amount of time? The New York Times wins the understatement of the year for calling her defense of secret NSA wiretaps “absurd.”

Remember when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, and “made the status quo worse”(the “status quo” being all the things liberals hated about George W. Bush when it came to prosecuting the War on Terror)? I do:

The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the U.S. military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on U.S. soil.

So now we have a situation where women like Sen. Feinstein believe the government can monitor your phone calls because you might be a terrorist in the future (whatever that means), and the government has the authority to indefinitely detain you without a trial.

Why are Hispanics worried that Republicans would pass legislation to force them to show their proof a citizenship? The federal government already has the power to make anyone it wants—white, black, green or purple—disappear … indefinitely, and the Hispanic vote put the guy over the top who put his Johnny Hancock on the legislation. Thanks, guys. No es bueno.

President Obama once said that he wanted to “fundamentally transform” The United States of America, and no one thought to stop him and ask: “Hey, what do you mean by that?” Well, he’s definitely succeeding, but not in the way his followers imagined.

Behold, an illuminating comment from the New York Times comment section:


Don says he “can no longer laugh at the Second Amendment radicals who want to defend themselves against the government.” Guess what, Don? We’re not “radicals” if you’re saying that you’ve just had that smirk wiped off your face by the guy who campaigned as the ultimate change agent.

Bill Maher has come around. Jon Stewart has come around. The New York Times has decided to speak up and so has The Huffington Post. Now that all of you realize that the old maxim is true — “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” — perhaps we can get to work on saving a great nation.


  1. Apparently the New York Times’ initial editorial had a much more powerful statement about Obama’s loss of credibility, which they apparently later softened.
    Originally, the line was:
    “The Obama Administration has now lost all credibility.”
    The line was later changed to “…all credibility on this issue…”
    In fact they were right the first time.
    Here’s the report from Gawker:

    1. But here’s the funny thing: the real “issue” we’re all talking about here is protecting the American people, NYT. So adding a qualifier does nothing because his first and foremost responsibility is to safeguard us. If he has lost all credibility “on this issue,” it’s over.

      Thanks for sharing the link!

  2. I see what you mean, but I also would say that the original statement was the NYT declaring the cumulative bankruptcy of Obama’s credibility after Fast & Furious, the IRS, Benghazi, the AP, and now surveillance of citizens — saying that no words that come out of the man’s mouth, on any subject, are credible at this point. Now that is some indictment, and Obama is guilty as charged.

    1. Ha. True. They wrote what they really thought and then realized that “Even the New York Times says…” would be thrown out there on the Sunday morning shows from now until the end of the 2016 election. They had to (try) and walk it back.

    1. Oh, you’re back? I guess you only comment when you can try and turn things into some sort of discussion that ends with you saying “partisan…partisan…partisan…partisan.” I’m kind of done with that game. Come back when you want to have a real conversation.

    2. Lizard’s being contrarian and partisan in his own right. But this transcends politics. Both parties are complicit to this madness. Liberal or conservative, the vote counts and results don’t lie. Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss… Obama’s only part of the problem. Congress gets a pass? All this could go away with a congressional investigation. But we won’t get it–Congress is in on it. He’ll, they wrote, passed, and re-affirmed the Patriot Act.

      If there ever was proof the parties are two heads on the same monster, this is it. Fear, cowardice, and ignorance rule our country. “Save us government.” Save us from what? “Take my rights; use them to keep me safe.” Safe from what? How many people do you know who died at the hands of domestic terrorists or jihadist? As tragic as a few dozen or a even few thousand deaths at the hands of terrorists are, should we discard hundreds of years of our grand experiment and disgrace the hundreds of thousands soldiers and citizens who died for that freedom to save them?

      The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

      It makes you wonder if history will declare Bin Laden the winner in the end. For what is America if the Constitution is considered null and void?

    3. Well said, MeAgain. While I may quibble with parts of what you’re saying, I do think we’re seeing the problem in very similar shades.

      Here’s what I said to Carl in another thread:

      I know that these are uber-complex issues. Technology is moving faster than plodding government bureaucrats can figure it out. I get it. They’re charged with keeping us safe, but at the same time the world is moving faster and faster and faster. Some people don’t get the tech. Some people want more time to figure out their political talking points (those lowest of the low who play politics with national security). And so, when the government doesn’t understand something it decides to just control it. All of it.

      I’d cut Obama some slack, but this guy ran as if he was Superman. He’s the same guy who said that the oceans would begin to fall the moment he was elected … How do you go easy on a guy like that? Millions of kids voted for this guy and you could look at them and see how devoted they were. He was (and still is to many) a cult figure. He didn’t just over promise and under deliver a random mish-mash of policy changes — Obama promised the world and has generally delivered squat. And, in many cases, he’s Bush on steroids (e.g., drones, NSA spying).

      When you have people like Sen. Feinstein who say they need these measures because we might become a terrorist in the future then you know they’ve gone too far. I’m not sure how anyone can say, “Yep. Sounds kosher to me,” when the lady is going into ‘Minority Report’ pre-crime logic.

      My big beef is that I lived in Los Angeles from 2002-2005 and I now live in the D.C. area. I watched the anti-Bush rallies take place up close and personal. Those things stopped over night the day President Obama was elected, which tells me they were playing politics with national security all along. Things are so polarized that we can’t even have an honest debate about these serious issues. Bush had to be an idiot. He was the biggest idiot in the world. And then Obama comes along and he takes many of those same policies everyone called Bush an idiot for … and elevates them to a whole new level. And yet, it’s only now that people are starting to wake up.

      When it comes to cybersecurity, I’d also note that it’s not just about terrorism. We have China, Russia, and a host of other countries that threaten our national security on a daily basis. So again, I know that these are complex issues, but it seems as though we’re so caught up in stupid moronic conversations (e.g., How racist is the GOP? Really racist! Why? Because the news tells me so every single day.) that it all just keeps unraveling.

  3. I’ve been tracking Obama’s duplicity since his first inauguration, so none of this really comes as a surprise. this is what voting the lesser of two evils produces.

    1. I actually burst out laughing when I read this. Yes, you’re good at tracking duplicity and complaining. And complaining… And complaining…

      Imagine what would happen if you used all that energy and instead focused most of it towards coming up with solutions and taking proactive steps to make that vision a reality.

    2. raising awareness is important, especially considering how reluctant Obama supporters have been up till now in acknowledging the continuity between Bush and Obama.

      how critical of Bush were you, Doug, as the foundation for destroying our civil liberties was established?

    3. I know you want to make this into some sort of contest over who is more awesome between the two of us. Here, let me settle it: You are. I’d fill you in on what I was doing during most of the Bush years, but I know you’re uncomfortable any time things get introspective, so I won’t. Stay in your little happy place where you, Lizard19, are the misunderstood warrior who continues to stand athwart history yelling “Stop!” in bizarro Buckley style, wondering why no one listens. Why wouldn’t they listen to someone as awesome as you? I wonder…

  4. you conclude by saying it’s time to get to work to save this great nation—what do you have in mind, Doug, electing conservatives? will Rand Paul be your political savior?

    1. No. I simply refuse to go into the poisonous muck with you. “Will Rand Paul be your political savior?” Everything with you is aimed at creating a condescending, sarcastic and acid-dripped atmosphere. I’m done with that.

      You’ve read this blog long enough to know I see no politician as a “political savior.” Anyone can read my response to MeAgain and see that I’m interested in having a real conversation, and they can see what you’ve written and see that you just like to argue with people. MeAgain is probably a lot closer to you than me on the political spectrum, and even he called you out. Shouldn’t that be a wake up call?

      You’re obsessed with duplicity. Whose duplicity convinced you that you had to be this way, Lizard19? What happened to you along the way where you convinced yourself that you had to be so negative all the time? It doesn’t have to be that way. You have a choice. Let it go. When you do you’ll figure out how to have real, meaningful exchanges with those around you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s