FOR THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE WILL PUT US IN A HOLE

According to the Wall Street Journal:

The National Security Agency’s monitoring of Americans includes customer records from the three major phone networks as well as emails and Web searches, and the agency also has cataloged credit-card transactions, said people familiar with the agency’s activities.

The disclosure this week of an order by a secret U.S. court for Verizon Communications Inc.’s phone records set off the latest public discussion of the program. But people familiar with the NSA’s operations said the initiative also encompasses phone-call data from AT&T Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp., records from Internet-service providers and purchase information from credit-card providers.  …

NSA also obtains access to data from Internet service providers on Internet use such as data about email or Website visits, several former officials said. NSA has established similar relationships with credit-card companies, three former officials said.

It couldn't be determined if any of the Internet or credit-card arrangements are ongoing, as are the phone company efforts, or one-shot collection efforts. The credit-card firms, phone companies and NSA declined to comment for this article.

Not ongoing? Anyone want to bet on that?

National Intelligence Director James Clapper defended that program late Thursday saying procedures are in place that are approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.”

“Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats,” Clapper said in a statement.

As long as it’s to protect everybody it’s OK? Like the Patriot Act on steroids?

We conservatives often talk about the “slippery slope.” Some of us didn't like the Patriot Act for just that reason.

Now we've seen the slope and are accelerating down it.

Let’s see who recognizes it.

SUNDAY RESPITE-Wings As Eagles-Phil Driscoll

PRETTY BAD WHEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SCRIPT TO REMEMBER YOUR LIES

President BO (the amateur president) spoke Friday in San Jose, CA and was immediately at a loss for words. He didn't have his teleprompter and his aides forgot to put his speech out for him.

“My remarks are not sitting here,” the President declared awkwardly.  “I’m uhhh….people….oh goodness….uhhhh...folks are sweating back there right now.”

President Obama is often mocked (even on this blog, if you can imagine such a thing) for an over-reliance on scripts. He shifted uncomfortably trying to buy time. An aide sprinted out with a hard copy of the speech, tripping at one point, just to make it all seem more professional.

You can watch the whole thing here.

JUST A FEW QUESTIONS

1.  Do governments have rights?

2.  If so, what rights do they have?

3.  Where did the government get those rights?

4.  Do citizens have rights?

5.  If so, what rights do they have?

6.  Where did they get those rights?

7.  In each case, who decides what the rights are and why?

8.  Are rights absolute or conditional?

9.  If they are not absolute, how are they changed?

10. If they are conditional, who gets to say when and how they are changed?

11. What are the scenarios in which the dissolution of rights becomes problematic?

12. Are some rights more important than others for governments and/or citizens? If so, how do you know?

SUCH CLASS, SUCH POISE,SUCH A DESPOT!

Michelle Obama was addressing a private Democratic Party fundraiser in Northwest Washington when Ellen Sturtz, 56, a lesbian activist, interrupted her remarks to demand that President Obama sign an anti-discrimination executive order.

According to witnesses, MO showed her displeasure – stopping her speech to confront the heckler.

“One of the things that I don’t do…(long pause) … well is this,” she said to applause from most of the guests, according to a White House transcript. “Do you understand?”

The First Lady left the lectern and moved over to the protester. She is quoted Obama as saying: “Listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”

You know? Every politician has had to face hecklers. Make no mistake, Michelle Obama is a politician. But even if she was not a politician, she is the "First Lady." As such she has tried hard to project an image of grace, class and poise. She is lauded for how "professional" she is. She is admired for her eloquence of speech.

In a speech about what a great example we should be to children and how we should have them at the forefront of our thoughts, providing them with everything they "need," she demonstrated what she means by "setting a good example."

When interrupted, she left the platform, stood inches away from the face of the heckler, and threatened to take her ball and go home, like a pouty little kid.

What do you think was the purpose of that long pause before concluding her attack on the heckler was about?

Do you think it is possible that she realized that she was about to say something that would scar her precious image, thought better of it and decided to add the qualifier, "well?"

Putting aside the free speech issue of the heckler (which I don't think applies at a private event, anyway), Michelle Obama certainly lost all semblance of poise and class. Where most speakers would address the situation politely from the podium and let those responsible for security handle the heckler, MO decided to take matters into her own hands.

Compare her with Barbara Bush or with Laura Bush. How many times did you ever see either one of them lose their composure like that? (OK, so I generally believe comparisons are meaningless, but I'm just saying...)

Her decision was not a measured, calculated response, it was a knee-jerk reaction to something that SHE didn't like...something that dared to interrupt her magnificence...her Majesty.

The heckler was escorted out of the venue, and properly so. This is not about whether she should have been allowed to shout out at the FL. It is not about freedom of speech. It is about the unmeasured reaction of MO, and it does not bode well for her.

On Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos, after airing the audio on ABC, commented, "Score one for the First Lady."

Really?

Showing her angst, intolerance and low class is a point for the First Lady?

Michelle Obama is a boorish, bully who thinks far more highly of herself than is justified.

While this incident might not go down in history as one of the most egregious acts of the President's wife, it certainly does demonstrate where she is really coming from. 

It certainly is a good thing that she is above criticism.

WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

Maybe I should just
develop some character.

The United States Department of Justice is the highest level of justice in America. Respect for this department is justified because of its reverence for the rule of law. It does not create law, but it enforces the law. That enforcement is supposed to be impartial, fair and in keeping with the spirit that is America.

The integrity of the Department of Justice is supposed to be unimpeachable. It is to be impartial and apolitical in all matters of truth and justice, hence its name: the Department of Justice.

The head of the Department of Justice is also the chief law enforcement officer in the country. Presently, Eric Holder is that head.

It is now becoming clear that the Attorney General has played a personal role in an unprecedented intrusion on the freedom of the press.

You would think that after Fast and Furious, after looking away from the IRS mess and after doing nothing in response to calls for explanations, someone would have gone to Eric Holder and said, “Look. This is getting out of hand, and you’re not looking very good. You should take definitive steps to enhance your image with the American public. Do something legal.”

But no one has done so. The president sure hasn't. Instead he expresses complete confidence in this sorry excuse for a Top Cop.

It all started when the Department of “Justice” targeted a Fox News reporter for simply reporting the news.Regardless of whether you like Fox News or not, they have a Constitutional right to report the news as they see it. Just like Tea Partiers and others on the political right have a right NOT to be singled out for persecution by the IRS.

Eric Holder approved spying on the Fox News reporter, saying his reporting was like criminal activity. This for reporting what an Obama staffer told him! What kind of a deal is that?

The First Amendment recognizes the importance of the freedom of the press. That means that the government has no say in what gets reported, how it gets reported, why or when it gets reported. “Congress shall make NO law…” regarding the freedom of religion, speech or the press. And it’s all in one sentence!

Speaking of sentences, a long sentence is what Holder should get for his deliberate, knowing, and despotic intrusion into the freedom of the press.

Just to make matters worse, Holder testified before Congress that he had had no involvement with such things and did not think it would be “…wise polity.” That turned out to be a lie. In fact, Holder knew about and gave both tacit and active approval to that activity, not only with regard to Fox News, but with the Associated Press, too!

Did you get that? He blatantly and demonstrably lie to Congress. That has become pretty common lately, and seemingly no one cares.

So Holder decides to meet with the press to iron things out, but sees no problem with making a meeting about transparency untransparent. He wanted the meeting to be “off the record.” The press (what a surprise) didn't think that a good idea and turned him down.

Why should they meet with him to talk about why it would be a good idea not to do what he already did? He did what he did and now says he shouldn't be allowed to do it!!?? And this after he originally denied doing it!!!

Isn't he in effect saying to the press, “Hey, you people need to help me figure out a way to protect you from people like me?” Couldn't he have stopped himself and relied on the law?

He presided over an unprecedented seizure of press records. Then he denied doing it and then said, “Help keep me from doing it again!"

Is this any way to run the Department of Justice?

SUNDAY RESPITE-All the Earth-Parachute Band