What the heck did President Obama say?

Last night I watched and listened to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address. 

Today, I found and read the transcript because I was plagued with a burning need to find out if what I thought I heard the President say is really what had been declared by him.  Here is the direct quote from the full transcript:

That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated. (Applause.) And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world.

I found this of particular interest and simply want to examine it briefly in light of the law suites against the government for the violations of our Constitutionally protected rights to reasonable expectations of privacy and against unwarranted searches and seizures, etc.. as written into the 4th Amendment (see blog below). 

So what the President said again was:

"That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated. (Applause.) And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world."

Just looking at that first portion, President Obama has said that there is nothing wrong with the surveillance programs currently spying on normal everyday Americans.  Citizens who have never even been a blip on the NSA's radar in the past and now, with no reasonable suspicion and absolutely no probable cause, the Government has devised a system through the FISA Court wherein they can obtain letters authorizing them to force private companies to turn over their information on completely innocent American's. 

If, as the President would have us believe, there is absolutely nothing illegal or immoral about these programs, why then would he have declared in his State of the Union Address:

"That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated. (Applause.)"

If it was not broken, why on earth would he be working with Congress to reform it to ensure that the privacy of ordinary people is not being violated?

The President's closing portion of that train of thought was:

"And with the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- (applause) -- because we counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action but by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world."

If this president is truly concerned about remaining true to our constitutional ideals, why has he not suspended this program and demanded that the NSA, the FBI and the Government at large, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" as sworn and immediately go back to obtaining warrants supported by probable cause to obtain the records of the citizens that the government is there to serve?

Remember that this is the same President who said that American's need to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy. 

Here is the applicable quote as taken from Huffington Post:

"I think the American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved," Obama said when questioned by reporters at a health care event in San Jose, Calif.

"It's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience," he said. "We're going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity."

Remember that when asked in open Court to give one single solitary example of this program ever having worked to identify and thwart a pending act of terrorism against the United States or it's citizens' the government was unable to do so. 

Since there is no quantifiable measure of success with this program and in that the President himself says that there must be reform to ensure that the "that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated." shouldn't this government admit that it crossed the lines and take every possible step to bring itself back in check "by remaining true to our constitutional ideals and setting an example for the rest of the world."

Semper Vigilantes

We the People vs. the NSA et al,

We The People vs The NSA, et al

For few of those who will read this will it come as a surprise that the Government of These United States is actively spying on its citizens.  Most of us have a basic understanding of The Fourth Amendment to The Constitution and that states:

Fourth Amendment

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 
In his speech given on January 17, 2014, President Obama stated:

"In fact, even the United States proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. In the 1960s government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the Vietnam War. And probably in response to these revelations, additional laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long twilight struggle against communism, we had been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security."
 
President Obama continued by admitting the "supercomputers are sifting through the data and that there is a recognized potential for abuse": 

"Second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. It’s a powerful tool. But the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse."

When addressing our professionals within the intelligence gathering community, President Obama clearly admits the vulnerabilities of the U.S. citizens reasonable expectations of privacy when he says:

"They’ve got electronic bank and medical records like everybody else. They have kids on Facebook and Instagram. And they know, more than most of us, the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded and email and text and messages are stored and even our movements can increasingly be tracked through the GPS on our phones."

 The President then addresses the seriousness of the threats to privacy we suffer when he states:

"Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. "

The good President then legitimizes the fears that every citizen of These United States should recognize when he says:

"But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us. We won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. It depends on the law to constrain those in power."

So now the President wants us to feel secure in the knowledge that He is taking the following "affirmative" steps to keep "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,..."  When he says"

"And today I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to codify with Congress.
  
First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad. This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities. It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances, our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of American companies, and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team."

So in one breath, The President warns us that "it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us.  We won't abuse the data we collect" then he says that "He" has granted "himself" by virtue or a new Presidential directive stronger "Executive Branch Oversight of our intelligence activities."  Isn't this truly the fox guarding the chicken coop?  The President is warning us not to trust the government that spied on dissidents in the past but to trust Him and his appointee's because they are somehow more trustworthy than their predecessors" 

"This brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few months, the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke. This program does not involve the content of phone calls or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provide a record of phone numbers and the times and length of calls, metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization."

The same President who would have us believe that he and his cabinet are more trustworthy than those who have gone before then completely contradicts his own prior statements.  Remember earlier in this speech when the President said;  " digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads" and we are to simply take his word for it that our individual data is secured while that sifting is taking place to locate potential threats to the United States? 

During the recent inquiries into this entire debacle, the Government was loathe to express one single solitary instance when this form of intelligence gathering and "sifting" had lead to the identity of one single instance where a terrorist plot had been identified and / or thwarted. 

We the People must stop following blindly a Government that admits that it sacrifices the rights and liberties provided us in the very Constitution in exchange for some alleged additional securities against terrorist threats, plots or attacks. 

Our forefathers would have been shot or hanged for treason had they been discovered while attempting to forge the lifeblood that has become this great nation.  They were willing to take the risks necessary to stand up against tyrants and injustices and We the People now more than even need to regain oversight of our Government, it's policies and it's actions.  If we do not begin to hold them accountable, who will?  At what point will we all wake up in an Orwellian state with no liberties or justices for any of us?

BOLO - Help Catch This Guy

I am asking for assistance in locating the guy who physically attacked a dear friend of mine in an elevator at a Santa Monica Office Building on July 11th, 2012.  This creep laid in wait in the lowest level of the parking garage and followed her into an elevator.  He wrapped a towel around her head and told her "Don't worry, this will all be over soon". 

This young lady fought off her attacker but he was able to get away.  I have real concerns that this guy has done this before and since he was willing to attack at 9:00 AM on a busy day for the office building, it may show that he is at an escalated point in his assaults.

Please review the Press Release from Santa Monica P.D. and forward this to everyone you know.  If you recognize this dirt bag, contact Sergeant Richard Lewis of the Santa Monica Police Department at (310) 458-8462 or myself at (866) 866-2268.

Dazed and Confused

As a Veteran of the United States Army and the father of an active duty Marine who recently returned from his second tour in Afghanistan, I am deeply bothered.

On Memorial Day, I was disappointed to see President Obama lay the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns and instead of rendering the hand salute in honor and tribute to the fallen souls buried there, he placed his hand over his heart during the playing of taps. All the other Military personal present paid the proper respect by rendering the customary hand salute. 

I like so many others immediately imagined the debate that must have taken place when President Obama took office about should he or should he not salute.  I came to the conclusion that some political advisers more worldly and knowledgeable than I must have decided that the current President should refrain from rendering the hand salute because he had never served his country.  At that point I had appeased myself and although disappointed that those fallen heroes did not receive the proper respect earned, that the counter argument was that the President, although the current Commander in Chief, had not served and therefore should refrain from saluting as it might cause even more controversy.

I truly tried to dismiss this from my active thoughts but last night as I sat watching the news, I was shown footage of President Obama getting off of Marine One on several different occasions and each time, he rendered and received the Hand Salute of the Marines pulling security for him.  This was seriously a WTF moment for me.  I am not trying to influence a political agenda.  Personally I want to vote - No confidence but I do have to voice my disapproval of a President who on one hand will salute his active duty Marine Guards but on the other refuses to show the same level of respect for those who gave their lives to ensure his freedom.

I wish someone, anyone could explain to me why the sitting President of These United States would show such a blatant lack of respect for those who paid the ultimate price to win our freedom.

GAO WHERE ARE YOU NOW

America needs you Harry Truman.  Years ago your desk in the oval office proudly displayed the sign "THE BUCK STOPS HERE".  At that time, the general understanding of the sentiment was that YOU, the President of these United States were the ultimate in accountability and that with you, lay all credit and blame.

In recent years, it would seem that the sign still resides on the most powerful desk in the world but that the sentiment behind it has changed to reflect the end game of the political fund raising dollars into the private coffers and ventures of those who seek to hold that office.  PLEASE note that I have had this thought for way more years than the Democrats have held the White House.  This is not a Democrat or Republican issue this is a systemic issue allowing the tax payers dollars to bear the costs of the fund raising efforts of the incumbent President.

Last night George Clooney hosted a private gala at his residence where those who were able paid $40,000.00 per person for the honor of dining with the President and Mr. Clooney.  Look, I don't begrudge those who can, spending their dollars to have dinner with the most powerful man in the world.  It isn't my money.  I don't care that the money leaves the State of California while the State is on the brink of bankruptcy. 

What is really insulting to me is that the sitting President of the United States of America can use three aircraft, who knows how many Secret Service whore mongers, not to mention the local resources of a financially distressed State and City to raise some record 15 million dollars for his campaign and have NO obligation to off set the amount of tax dollars spent to "go begging". 

Some years ago, people were enraged and astounded when Air Force One wasted tax payer dollars sitting on the tarmac while Mr. President got his hair cut but no one questions that it takes Air Force One and two other Military Transport Aircraft to move the President's motorcade and support personnel with equipment.  That hotel rooms must be paid for, meals per diems, fuel for the aircraft, I would suppose that airport fees must be paid and the list goes on and on.  Why is it that the Pres is not required to have the Government Accounting Office look in to the costs of these trips which are truly personal and make the President repay those costs before pocketing the remainder of his new found fortunes?

What next?  Will "We The People" be asked to fund the costs of schlepping Presidential Hopefuls from fund raiser to fund raiser?  I reviewed the ballot initiatives to the best of my ability in the past several elections and I note the box to give one dollar to the Presidential Candidate remains but no where was I able to locate a box to be checked or a chad to be left hanging that says - spend my tax dollars on fund raising trips. 

Oh and for the record I think that when the good sitting President goes out to help local politicions win their races, they, the locals, shouldd have to pay for those same costs too. 

How many homeless could be housed or hungry could be fed with the amount of tax dollars that are being spent on campaign fund rasing junkets?

About SGT STEIN

OK, I keep getting messages about "Defending SGT STEIN" and after much and serious contemplation, I am compelled to offer the following.

The following express MY OPINIONS and my opinions only.  Those opinions are based on my lengthy and honorable service to this country in the United States Military AND that during that time, I was a Military Police Person, Military Police Investigator and Senior Investigator as well as the Assistant Operations Sergeant / Operations Sergeant for several Military Installations both in the US and abroad.  I AM HONORABLY retired.

In that NONE of us were ACTUALLY present at his hearing AND in that we only know what the media would like us to hear perhaps the voice of reason is needed.

Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is commonly referred to as "The General Article". 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/134.htm

The military uses this article when the specifics of other Articles do not exactly apply to an offense.  In every story that I have read, there is NO MENTION that the good Sergeant was charged or convicted of violating Article 92 of the UCMJ which is "Disobeying a Lawful Order". 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm

Please note that in the "Elements of Proof" this Article states that there must have been an order, that the order was lawful, that the person subject to the code knew the order existed and that he or she failed to obey it.  IF as some would have us believe, SGT Stein was dishonorably discharged because he failed to obey a lawful order, the military would have charged him with such, NOT used the General Article as they did.  Here are the "Elements of Proof" for Article 134 as listed in the UCMJ:

(1) That the accused did or failed to do certain acts; and

(2) That, under the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Stein was charged under 134 for acting in a manner that would be prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the military.".  That is it.  That is what he was "convicted of".

In my humble opinion, it APPEARS as though the ACTUAL issue is not that Sgt Stein spoke his mind or even necessarily the jargon that he used to do so, but admittedly, some of what he said could have been charged "LOOSELY" under the military laws regarding disrespect to a commissioned officer - however in that the Commander in Chief is not actually Commissioned, even that becomes suspect.  What Stein SEEMS to have done is to have taken up the banner and initiated or advanced "The Military Tea Party".  Also note that he was not charged with "Sedition".  Sedition is chargeable under Article 94 of the UCMJ. 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm94.htm

(a) "Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuse, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

We are all briefed during Basic Training / Boot Camp that although we can attend political rallies, we are prohibited from doing so in uniform.  YES, there are exceptions where the Military is asked to be present AND has granted dispensation for a color guard or for other reasons and we all know that every politician wants some photo op with men and women in uniform BUT what Stein SEEMS to have done was START or ADVANCE a political party or movement, and that he did so using his military service as a platform.

Some in the media would have us believethat Stein stated he ould disobey an order b the Commander in Chief.  I believe what he said is that he would not follow an unlawful order order.  All in the services since the My Lei Masacre with Lt. Calley in Viet Nam are taught NOT to follow orders blindly but rather to obey LAWFUL orders.  Clearly the orders given at My Lei were illegal and those who followed them were punished.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley
NOW WAIT - before you go throwing stones, I believe that Stein was used to advance an initiative at it is working.  I also believe that it is laughable that those who are sworn to "Protect the Constitution of The United States Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic", are not allowed the same protections it promises themselves.  An active duty military member does NOT have the right to Freedom of Speech even though they are expected to be willing to fight even unto death to defend our rights to the same. 

TWO LAST POINTS OF ORDER -

1)  Sgt Stein is set to ETS or End his Time in Service in July of this year.  That is three months from now.  Why wouldn't the Military Powers simply bar him from reenlisting? Well, what better way to quell a ground swell then to "Set an Example" of the good Sergeant?  The Military has been using peer pressure and setting examples for as long as they have been in business. 

2)  Some media would have us believe that Stein will loose all of his V.A. benefits based on the OTH Discharge (Other Than Honorable).  I did a bit more research and found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_discharge

If one takes a minute to read the portions of this information as it applies to OTH Discharges it becomes clear that loss of V.A. Benefits is NOT a result of this type of action bu rather one that comes from a Bad Conduct Discharge. 

What is the quote?  "THE ROOTS OF THE TREE OF FREEDOM MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS."

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:

Question authority AND the media.

Radio Resolution by L.A. City Counsel

For those of you who do not reside in the Greater Los Angeles area, welcome to the newest "ONLY IN L.A." chapter of worlds wildest politicians.  "Today, the Los Angeles City Counsel led by council members Herb Wesson, Jan Perry and Bernard Parks, as well as several minority groups" will be debating a "resolution" which according to KTLA Los Angeles states in part:

Sponsors of the resolution say John and Ken and other KFI hosts have a history of "deplorable racist and sexist remarks.

"The resolution calls on KFI to reign in its talk show hosts.

It states, in part: "Derogatory language used by some radio personnel has no place on public airwaves in the Great City of Los Angeles or anywhere in America.

"The City Council urges KFI 640 AM's management to do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not... promote racist and sexist slurs.""

Brought to you by the same folks who think it is in the best interest of the law abiding citizens of Los Angeles to allow illegal immigrants to get California Driver's Licenses, they are now certainly inviting even more unchecked responses from the likes of Clear Channel, Rush Limbaugh and John and Ken to protect their Constitutional Rights to both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. 

If Rush, John or Ken were African American Radio Personalities would the politico's be as offended by their use of the term "Ho"?  How many rap lyrics aired on the radio waves of America and produced right here in Los Angeles, contain references to illegal drugs or sexually degrading terms like; "slut", "whore", "ho" or worse?

To keep the record straight, a "Resolution" in this context is defined as:

Non-binding

Main article: Non-binding resolution

In a house of a legislature, the term non-binding resolution refers to measures that do not become laws. This is used to differentiate those measures from a bill, which is also a resolution in the technical sense. The resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support.

So at best, this is a hollow action and waste of tax payer time and money in some misguided effort to garner support of those on the political left to decry those who exercise their 1st Amendment Rights to free speech.  The "resolution" cannot impinge those rights in any way.  It can only invite continue debate and discussion which in fact creates greater polarity and must almost certainly widen the racial gap. 

Yes, this is big city politics at its best.  The presidential election looms on the horizon and polarity means big money from campaign contributors on both sides of the fence.  Those on the extreme right will certainly open their wallets to support Rush and his fan base grow.  Those on the extreme left will equally rally behind the banner of ethnic and woman's rights. 

Will it ever matter that there is now allegedly a new sex tape of Whitney Houston which might to some small degree justify the use of the term "ho" regarding her behaviour? And, if the toxicology report comes back that she was again using illegal substances, inclusive of crack cocaine, would anyone feel it necessary to pro offer an apology to John and Ken for what could potentially be an expression of a substantiated fact?  I doubt it but why are we wasting our tax dollars on this anyway?

And lest we forget; "Freedom isn't free".  As one who has served in defense of the Constitution and its Amendments I learned that it was equally as important for me to be willing to fight to the death to preserve your right to burn my flag in protest as it was for me to stand in defense of my right to fly it. 

The "Resolution" is hollow and can best be discribed as a political chess move. 

Check - It's your move LA. City Counsel.