The Extended Patriot Act

2013 is shaping up to be an eye opener for Americans to the extent that our Federal Government and agencies have extended their look into our private lives. The IRS delay of approving Conservative and Jewish 501(c) applications while approving Liberal 501(c) groups in a timely manner - even on one instance back dating the approval several years. Over the last week, the UK newspapers broke several stories about the NSA, and other agencies, demanding phone records, email data, and internet activity of American citizens. The NSA, FBI, and CIA all claim all requests were legal and compliant under the recently extended and amended Patriot Act.

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, defended the use of a classified program known as PRISM last Thursday by claiming that "information collected under his program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of  Americans." Part of what Clapper claims is accurate that the information obtained can be extremely valuable to defending our borders and infrastructure from any manner of foreign attack. The trouble with Clapper's claim is the program is being used to survey Americans which violates one Due Process at a very minimum.

Granted the Founding Fathers didn't foresee the internet nor a global economy as we experience today; yet they were intelligent enough to put forth broad ideas that are applicable to evolutionary forces. Societies as they mature have become more and more reliant on technology - internet, tablets, and smartphones. With this reliance comes opportunity of abuse in the form of cyberattacks, unwarranted intrusion, or mining of information. No secret exists that Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc...track the pages we go to, words we search, friends we make, topics we discuss all in an effort to tailor our experience and drive revenues.

The trouble now is that Big Brother is mining this data for reasons that are not legit. The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every American from illegal searches and seizures. As I stated above, the Founding Fathers didn't foresee the internet but the concept is applicable. Any American, as long as the use is legal, ought to be able to fire up the internet without fear that any branch or agency of the government is tracking their every move. Makes me wonder though, of the over 300 hits my blog posts get - how many are government agencies?

Rep. Maxine Waters stated earlier this year that, "The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That's going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information on every individual on ways that it's never been done before and whomever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They're going to go down with the database and the concerns of those people because they can't get around it And he's been very smart. It's very powerful what he's leaving in place." When Rep. Waters first stated this most Americans, and the media, presumed that she was talking about a database of Democratic donors. Take this statement, combine it with the IRS scandal and the recent revelations of NSA and FBI mining of internet activity leads one to see that President Obama's database is much more than donors.

The dots are being connected and American's need to see them. Our Federal Government has grown too big and under the current administration has expanded the Patriot Act to the point of violating every American's 4th Amendment right. Unfortunately it took the UK Guardian to break the levee, leaving American media playing catch up. I agree that we need to ensure that cyberattacks and other illegal activity is combated on the internet but it needs to be done within the context of protecting our freedoms and obeying the law of the land. 

Egypt uprising: Opportunity for change in America’s Middle East policy?

For the past several days we have watched an escalating situation in Egypt to the point of violence. Many point to pro-Mubarak "thugs" for inciting the violence. Press Secretary Gibbs said yesterday that we need change "now". When Obama took office he toured the Middle East and gave speech after speech trying to reach out to the Muslim world while apologizing for the heavy hand of America. Ironically, now, the same man that railed against prior Middle East policy is trying to influence the situation in Egypt. The protesting in Egypt raises bigger questions as it appears the wind of change is blowing throughout the Middle East. A week back Tunisia saw similar change, earlier this week Jordan dismissed part of their government due to protestors and now Yemen is heating up.

In reading the foreign papers and American papers this week the bogey man has ranged from the CIA to the Muslim Brotherhood. We all understand why President Obama is pushing Mubarak to step aside and why America continues to meddle in the Middle East; oil. Just because a Democrat or a Progressive is in the White House does not change the root reason for America's Middle East foreign policy. If Obama wants a switch to more Western style Democracy in Egypt then allow Mubarak and/or his "party" to run in the September election. What role should the United States take in Egypt and the Middle East?

President Obama gives Intelligence 101 speech

"As President, I have solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people and when the system fails, it is my responsibility," said President Obama yesterday in his speech about the lapse in security of the "Underwear" Bomber. About time that President Obama takes responsibility and stops blaming the Bush Administration for all this challenges. I agree with President Obama that there was not one piece of data missed; rather the system as a whole failed to analyze the data properly. Perhaps the scolding President Obama gave the C.I.A earlier this year is having repercussions that he did not anticipate. The more troubling aspect of this incident is that Americans will see their freedoms reduced further under the guise of "National Security". I do not foresee another Patriot Act but the application of intrusive scanning may be moving us down that road.

President Obama said, "Ultimately, the buck stops with me." Did Hoover just walk into the White House? It is refreshing to hear President Obama to take responsibility and that he may finally understand the tough job it is to keep freedoms safe from those that seek to destroy it. "Because great and proud nations don't hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. That is exactly what our adversaries want," stated President Obama. Correct, and our adversaries want to disrupt our economy and encourage further erosion of our freedoms. The plan going forward appears to be out of Intelligence Analysis 101 class.

Some of the actions President Obama laid out were timely distribution of intelligence reports; improve watch list databases, enhanced intelligence analysis, and aggressive and thorough pursuit of terrorism threat threads. See a more comprehensive list at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6065ZB20100107. All of these should already be in place. Perhaps if President Obama hadn't blasted the intelligence community earlier this year, they would be more apt to aggressively pursue terror suspects. Granted no system is fool proof and someone will always find a way to beat the system. As the old saying goes, "We need to be vigilant every day; the terrorists only need to be lucky once." What is the cost to Americans? After 9/11 we saw the Bush administration use that attack to pass the Patriot Act and now we see the Obama administration using the Christmas Day attack to deploy 300 advanced imaging scanners in the United States airport this year.

Here is what we can expect the TSA agents to see from the use of the scanners to be used:

Now is this something we as a Free Society need to subject ourselves to in order to "feel safer"? The TSA and government officials are saying that the TSA agent viewing these scans will not be in the same room as the person being scanned and that is to make us feel better? I was watching C-SPAN yesterday over the lunch hour, instead of having health care discussions on, the English House of Commons was on. The members of the House of Commons were grilling the Secretary of the Defense Ministry over various topics including the use of full-body scanners. The debate centered on the amount of personal freedom the members were willing to give up. The discussion did bring up the point about what would happen to the images. To which the honorable Secretary did not have an immediate answer.

Now the Obama administration contends that these images will not see the light of day and in fact will be destroyed. Really! If they are destroyed then what evidence one will have to go back to when determining how someone got another diaper bomb on the plane? Plus as one can tell from the images above, a woman with large breasts or a man with a large gut could easily hid bomb material. Also, my guess is that children will not be subject to these intrusive scanners which will give the terrorist their mule to getting explosives on the plane. The question comes down to this: How much personal freedom do we want to give up for safety from terror attacks? I do applaud President Obama for taking the potential terror attacks are still a real threat.

Obama’s delay in Afghanistan kills Americans.

During the Presidential campaign, Sen. Obama lambasted the Bush Administration and painted McCain as Bush 2.0 in regards to the war in Iraq. Part of the disdain was due to a lack of an exit plan in Iraq by the Bush administration. Prior to leaving office President Bush did set an 18-month timetable that was acceptable by both the Generals on the ground and the new Iraqi government. President Obama is keeping the plan intact rather than following up with his campaign promise to get combat troops out of Iraq by the end of his first year. In addition to his promise to draw down troops was the switch in focus on the "War on terror". That switch in focus was to take place in Afghanistan.

America enters the final week of October without a clear plan of action for Afghanistan. One of the concerns many had with Sen. Obama was his lack of foreign policy experience. President Obama has met with Gen. McChrystal only twice who has asked for an additional 40,000 troops. During a speech given to troops in Jacksonville, Fla., the president said, "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt." While the president crafts a strategy we continue to see more and more troops being killed. According to icasualties.org 267 U.S. troops have been killed thus far this year compared to 155 being killed all of last year in Afghanistan.

It has been nearly 10 months since Obama has taken office. Granted some data and situations have changed on the ground but in the grand scheme of things little has changed. It appears that an increase in troops may part of the answer with Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) stating that he'd "support a decision by President Obama to 'send some additional troops' provided improvements are made in Afghan troop training and government, and civilian aid efforts are increased" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-afghan27-2009oct27,0,7820767.story). Yet, Sen. Kerry believes that 20,000 troops would be enough and not the 40,000 that Gen. McChrystal is looking for.

Perhaps a bold move in Afghanistan is required in light of the resignation of United State Senior Civilian Representative Matthew Hoh. Hoh said his decision was not because of any political ideology; rather on the current and potential strategies. Hoh said, "I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love. I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end" (http://www.examiner.com/x-4454-Chicago-Geopolitics-Examiner~y2009m10d28-US-diplomat-resigns-over-Afghan-war-and-puts-Obama-on-hot-seat). Mr. Hoh raises a great question in regards to our involvement in a war that has raged for over 8 years; is U.S. presence really having the desired effects.

"I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul," stated Hoh. There is a run-off election going on in Afghanistan because objections were raised over the previous election results. The bumper crop in Afghanistan is opium. According to the United Nations, the market for "Afghan opium, heroin or morphine is about $65 billion per year" (http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2009/10/opium-afghanistans-other-big-problem.html). These funds create a cash cow for the drug lords and terror networks in Afghanistan. It also employees the peasants, the very peasants that NATO is claiming to "liberate". Now why would these peasants want to be liberated if that means their job will go away as well?

President Obama has been given the opportunity to make a drastic change in the drug war and the war on terror. Especially in light of a report that is linking Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan President, to the opium trade and the Central Intelligence Agency payroll. For decades Americans have seen taxpayer dollars being poured down the abyss known as the war on drugs. It is time for a drastic change. The plan is twofold.

First, President Obama needs to stand up and establish a plan – today – that will remove troop presence in Afghanistan within the next six months. Some will argue that pulling out of Afghanistan will only increase the fervor of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as it will be the second "Super Power" they have defeated. Allow them to think this as part two of the plan will greatly decrease their cash cow to fund their recruitment, training, and funding in carrying out attacks on Western targets.

Second, legalize illegal drugs. It is time for Americans to accept that drug use exists and to concede the war on drugs. The legalization of the drug market will have many benefits to American society. The benefits are:

1. Remove a cash cow from terror networks, street gangs and drug cartels.
   
2. Regulate the purity to reduce the risk of "hot" doses.
   
3. A revenue strain for the government through taxation along the lines of alcohol and tobacco.
   
4. Increase treatment of illicit drug users by removing the stigma.
   
5. Reduce prison populations thus saving taxpayer's money.
   

I understand that this is not a popular decision but neither is watching billions of dollars being wasted on the drug war. President Obama needs to act now on Afghanistan before more of our troops die needlessly. We need change we can believe in. Why not remove the troops while legalizing illicit drugs?

CIA investigation will be Obama’s Waterloo

A political debacle is brewing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave with the unleashing of Attorney General Eric Holder onto the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to review and prosecute the actions taken over the past 8 years. President Obama has stated several times that we need to look forward and not dwell on the past but by giving Attorney General Holder the nod to investigate and prosecute the CIA and Bush Administration national security policies is an hypocritical. Back in June of this year Holder was quoted as "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department."

Armed with the release of the CIA's inspector general 2004 report, Attorney General Holder appointed John Durham as federal prosecutor to re-open the cases that found only one abuse of detainees by career prosecutors and not Bush appointees. As CIA director Leon Panetta pointed out that all cases were "carefully and thoroughly, sometimes taking years to decide if prosecution was warranted or not." What benefit will America see from the re-opening of these cases? The Obama Administration is succumbing to the political left by green lighting the attack on the CIA.

President Obama started off his speech to the CIA, in April, with "It is a great honor to be here with the men and women of the CIA. I've been eager to come out here to Langley for some time so I can deliver a simple message to you in person, on behalf of the American people: Thank you. Thank you for all the work that you do to protect the American people and the freedom that we all cherish" while closing with "And you will have my support and appreciation as you carry on this critical work. We live in dangerous times – I am going to need you more then ever." Well Mr. President if your words are true then why is the Attorney General Holder reviewing cases that were already put to rest? The potential further prosecution by the Attorney General's office only weakens the CIA and our national security.

Some in Congress thought that the Health Care debate will be President Obama's Waterloo. The Waterloo for the Obama Administration is Attorney General Holder's nod to review the CIA practices of the past 8 years. Former Vice President summed it up on Fox News Sunday when he said, "I just think it's an outrageous precedent to set, to have this kind of, I think, intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration." Rumors are surfacing that CIA Director Leon Panetta will be resigning or canned before the end of the year. Regardless of the criticism made prior to Leon Panetta being appointed CIA Director, the move by the Obama Administration to reverse their stance of not prosecuting CIA operatives will weaken the CIA operative's future attempts to gather intelligence.

President Obama, once again, shows his lack of foreign policy understanding. The about face is an attempt to quench the thirst by the political left that have demanded Bush and Cheney be held accountable for actions afforded the CIA operatives to extract intelligence from Gitmo detainees post 9/11. Once again Mr. President, what benefit will Americans realized from re-opening the cases that career prosecutors have already decided on?