Whistle Blower Should Be Ignored Because He Is ONLY 29 Years Old

Have you noticed how the establishment has started reciting their talking points: the NSA whistle blower should be ignored because he’s only 29 y.o.?

I wonder, do these same talking-head idiots think we should have surrendered to Germany and Japan because of the age of those who fought the war?  Oh, I’m sure some will object, saying our generals were older and wiser, but I have a little news flash for anyone who makes such a foolish comment.

The guys at the pointy end of the stick in WW II, the ones who actually had to make policy happen, were FAR YOUNGER than this NSA whistle blower.  Heck, if you were in the Army Air Corps in WW II, you could have been a major, Lt Col. – even a FULL BIRD Colonel at the age of 25-26.  In the south Pacific, there was a 27 y/o GENERAL!  So, if people this young can be entrusted with something as grave to our nation’s security as fighting a war, why can’t a 29 y/o be matured enough to handle blowing the whistle on government abuses of our individual rights and liberty?

Me thinks me has found another indicator of who is an enemy of individual rights and liberty.

69 thoughts on “Whistle Blower Should Be Ignored Because He Is ONLY 29 Years Old

  1. The young man is a criminal but he may have done us a great service in the commission of his crime. I’m still not ready to hoist a flag in his honor. We need to know a little more about him.

    For me, it isn’t just this – it is the totality of the DOJ, the IRS, the State Department and now this at the NSA that just shows that these bastards shouldn’t be trusted with the till from a lemonade stand.

    • Don’t get me wrong, i am NOT “hoisting a flag of honor” to him. What I am saying is, IF WHAT HE ASSERTS IS TRUE, he is NOT a criminal. One cannot be a criminal when one refuses to obey an illegal law — and telling govt. employees they cannot tell the American people the Govt. is violating the Constitution is an illegal law.

      As for the rest, if what this guy is telling us is true — and I will tell you I have good reason to believe he isn’t telling us the full extent of how bad things are — then EVERYTHING you just mentioned is connected to Prism — and more.

      • Perhaps not you – but there are those on the right who are celebrating this and it is nothing to celebrate.

        Who says that what was done was un-Constitutional? I can say that but it doesn’t mean it. Fortunately or unfortunately, we live in a legal system based on juris prudence and until it is adjudicated, we do not have standing to say. I can say that I don’t think it is morally right, but I’m not sure that it is out of compliance with the law. Maybe we will know more today after Congress gets briefed.

        We have one person with no corroboration. We don’t know his agenda.

        • Utah,

          Yeah, I get it now. I just heard Rush say that Prism MUST be OK — because all three branches of govt. signed off on it.

          I guess that means, if all three branches “sign off” on making Obvama king, it will be legal and constitutional (not a jab at you, boss, but at how far we’ve come from understanding that ANYTHING violating the spirit of the Declaration — which the Constitution was meant to protect — is a violation of law).

          😦

          BTW: everything this guy said was affirmation of what the NSA and intel community has already said they are doing, so, unless they are lying about their admissions, yeah, we know they are doing this.,

          • Well, you are writing a prescription for anarchy there, Doc. This is how a representative repurchase works whether you like it or not. They all may be criminals but until that is proven, this is what we have. I don’t know if Snowden is a liar or a prophet. Neither do you. Time will tell but I will tell you that with what I know so far, I don’t believe any laws were broken.

            • So you think the 4th amendment allows the govt. to just ask for a warrant without any rhyme or reason and THAT is “legal?” Or that the 4th is NOT law?

              I know you better than that, don’t I?

              You see, the prescription for tyranny is saying that everything is legal is they say so until we “prove” they have broken a law. The problem with that is, if you let Pin-Pin tell you what is legal and then allow Pin-Pin to investigate himself, you will NEVER “prove” anything against him because Pin-Pin will just keep telling you “I did nothing wrong.”

              So, tell me, would you prefer anarchy or tyranny? 😉

              • Whistleblowers don’t run to other countries. I would have a lot fewer suspicions if he had stuck around and actually sought protection under the laws we have for stuff like this. I don’t know what this guy is but I do know that he broke the law. By definition, that makes him a suspected criminal.

                • They don’t? They do if they know they are likely to be killed for what they are saying. Now, are you going to tell me there is no reason to fear this Administration? The same Administration that has already declared it has the authority to kill you if it SUSPECTS you are a terrorist?

        • MY BAD!

          Rush JUST corrected himself. He meant Hoyer said all three branches said it was OK, so it is “legal.” Rush just hasn’t been very articulate where all these “gates” have been concerned — at least, not as articulate as he usually is.

        • Utah,
          Respectfully, the leaked “warrant” for Verizon for every single communication is illegal on its face. Illegal is also known as Un-Constitutional.

          4th Amendment requires the requestor of the warrant to raise his hand and under oath swear or affirm he has obtained trustworthy knowledge of specific articulable facts of specified individuals committing specific acts which constitute elements of a crime.

          Every single communication of every American Citizen?
          No f’ing way.

          The person whom presented this warrant to a “magistrate/judge” and the Judge should both be investigated and prosecuted and/or impeached. The people who are responsible for spying on every US citizen with no specific facts are knowingly violating the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens. All these Government bureaucrats took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. At the minimum, they all must be fired. Their supervisors who sought this criminal spying on innocent Americans, and those who facilitated spying on law aboding cotizens, should all be prosecuted for violating the Constitution & Americans rights

            • Utah,

              NOT trying to pick one of our infamous arguments, but I think you are entirely ignoring the requirement for a LEGAL warrant. Unless I miss his point, that is what Texas is driving at: that the MAJORITY of the warrants being issued in the name of “counter-terrorism” are too open-ended to be legal.

              To be legal they MUST meet the requirements of the 4th Amendment. ANYTHING less is pleading special case by the govt. which gets us into Pin-Pin territory.

              • Well then how are they issued illegally if the FISA judge approved them?

                Texas knows this – the law is not about what is right, it is about what you can prove. Until it is proven, it is nothing but opinion.

                You said that the left is already discounting Snowden due to his age. Since their stock and trade is delay and obfuscation, we can’t afford to be 99% right here – we have to be 110% on target. Too many times the right gets picked apart by a thousand cuts while the public tires of the work necessary to get to the bottom of it all.

                That is why I’m pushing back as hard as I am.

                • Utah,

                  Just because the courts say something is “legal” does not make it so. Obamacare comes to mind. I do not care what the court said, there is ZERO authority for Obamacare in the Constitution.

                  All you need to prove the warrants were unconstitutional (i.e. ILLEGAL) is the plain text of the 4th Amendment.

                  Finally, I understand why you are pushing back, but I see what you are doing as ceding the high ground. We have the Declaration — which IS law — and the Constitution — which was intended to protect and preserve the content of the Declaration. We need nothing more than to stand on that. Had the govt. tried something like this in 1776, the PEOPLE would have hung the govt. officials for subversion. So it is now that the PEOPLE still have the authority to decide what is and isn’t Constitutional (i.e. legal). otherwise, you have granted Washington D.C. Hobbes’ argument and are now trying to play according to those rules. What chance do you figure you have of succeeding under that scenario?

                • Utah and Joe,

                  IF TRUE: the FISA court signed warrants, which allow ALL communications from Verizon, to be recorded…
                  JUST like allowing FBI to surveil ALL phone lines and personal telephone communications of reporters and reporter’s families, etc.
                  WITH no specific articulable facts of wrongdoing by specific people they were recording the communications of,
                  THEN the actions were ILLEGAL ! regardless of whether a Judge has a specific “law” to point to that says “yes we can”.

                  4th Amendment:
                  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.

                  1) specific articulable facts of SPECIFIC ACTS and SPECIFIC PERSONS of criminality
                  2) trustworthy,
                  3) sworn to before a JUDGE (magistrate)…

                  YES, this really is this simple. As part of previous employment, I use to ask these same questions of law enforcement officers (LEO), and argue WHY their actions were legal to Judges and Juries. Additionally, when LEO’s acted illegally, if intentionally, the case would be dismissed, and if justified, LEO’s actions were referred to the Texas Rangers and Special Prosecutors for criminal investigations.

                  No Congressional law may be written to override the Constitution. No Judge can overrule the Constitution.

                  The phone records are reportedly for EVERY COMMUNICATION BY EVERYONE and have been ONGOING for years.

                  ONLY a Constitutional Amendment, passed in accordance with Article V of the CONSTITUTION,
                  can remove the 4th Amendment’s protection of individual US citizens or “bar to governmental action.”

                  • But to my point to Joe, is it not legal until it is ruled illegal?

                    Individuals just can’t say, “well, I don’t think the speed limit should be 35, it should be 45” as a justification to avoid a ticket.

                    Like it or not, we have a hierarchy of controls for laws and action in compliance or in controversion of them that is part of our legal system. Even your example indicates a process – “when LEO’s acted illegally, if intentionally, the case would be dismissed, and if justified, LEO’s actions were referred to the Texas Rangers and Special Prosecutors for criminal investigations.”

                    Does the collection of phone numbers qualify for a violation of the 4th Amendment?

                    The other problem that I have is that we simply don’t have enough evidence to make any kind of call right now – we are all talking about how it appears, not what it is.

                    I believe you are right philosophically but that simply isn’t the way it works – the ACLU has filed suit for exactly what we all believe is unconstitutional, so we will see what a court says.

                    • So, Utah, you let Pin-Pin tell you what the Constitution says and means.

                      Then hoist your white flag, brother, because you will never win when you let Pin_pin police himself. 🙂

                      Now, when you want to get serious — like our founders did — then let me know and we will stand on PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES, together — LIKE OUR FOUNDERS DID!!!

                      Or do you think they waited for George to admit he was wrong, or for the British Courts to tell George he was wrong? 😉

                      (I’m serious, but I say it in good humor, Utah — good humor 🙂 )

                    • And respectfully I say, you are full of shite. You are talking about extralegal actions. Just exactly when does the militia march on the data facility in Utah?

                      Until then the system we have is the system we have.

                      We can have an opinion that something is unconstitutional but we do not have the individual authority to stop an NSA program – we have representatives that have legislated it with our agreement – that is the way that our representative republic works.

                      Philosophy drives revolution, laws drive evolution. They follow each other in and endless circle of change.

                    • And when the law is what the govt. says it is, the serfs do what the govt. tells them to do because their rights are ONLY those the govt. allows them to have….

                      If that worked, our founders wouldn’t have had to fight a war. Now, that said, STOP USING STRAW MAN WITH ME! I never called for an armed revolt. I’ve told you and everyone on the RNL that will not work. But force MUST be used, and there are ways to apply force — you just don’t like the ways I’ve suggested (even though history has demonstrated they work).

                    • Things that are constitutional because they are legal… abortion, universal healthcare, an assortment of gun laws, vehicle checkpoints… anyone else questioning this?

                    • Utah,
                      The Chinese Government says it is legal to Harvest Chinese Prisoner’s organs for profit.

                    • What does that have to do with the Constitution? I never said that what was going on was right but “right” is not a legal term and the actions of our government are defined as legal or illegal, not right or wrong.

                      We have a system of laws to guide this process. My point was that if everybody decided what applied to them and what didn’t, there would be anarchy. In a perfect world, we would never pass laws that are unconstitutional but the tradition has become that we must challenge laws (or their effects) in a court of law because the judiciary has the constitutional duty to interpret the laws that are passed…and laws are assumed to meet the test until they are challenged.

                      I morally oppose abortion but the fact is that it is legal.

                    • So, when Obama gave himself the authority to declare you a SUSPECTED terrorist then assassinate you: that means it is legal?

                      Obama has given himself authority to pretty much do anything he wants with all his executive orders. Does that make them all legal?

                      What if he declares an emergency, grants himself emergency powers and dissolves the Constitution and Courts? Are you going to tell us that will be legal too? You will have to, because you have already defended the legality of several things that are CLEARLY unconstitutional, so you’ll have to defend the legality of Obama declaring himself emperor.

                      What I am shocked at here is that you have taken the side of the crown. You would have HAD to have been a Tory with these attitudes. After all, our founders were breaking the law, so I guess this means you agree with Obama: this nation has been “illegitimate” since its founding??? At least you are consistent: you are holding true tot he CONSERVATIVE line: Der State uber ales.

                      Utah, I expect I have made you angry with me again. Fine. But stop and think about what I just wrote. What matters more: the law, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? I think you have forgotten the spirit of the law. I would beg you to reconsider. Look to Scripture on this one. Remember what Christ told the Pharisees about twisting the law and holding to the twisted letter of the law opposed to adhering to the spirit of the law.

                    • Utah,

                      The point about China is that when evil men pass the “laws” and when those same men are in charge of enforcing the Laws, and the same men are in charge of “interpreting the Laws ….. well hopefully you see .

                      By what you are saying …. how in the world could you ever condone the American Revolution …… all the founders would seem to be Criminals in your eyes.

                  • Texas,

                    it isn’t just phone lines. The Intel community has admitted it collects ALL electronic communications in this nation. I posted the stories a while back where they admit it. They just opened their HUGE new facility for storing the data. This is warrantless searches of EVERYTHING, but hey, it’s OK because the govt. said you have no right to privacy with electronic communications, so how can this be a violation of the 4th??? See how easy it is when we accept their re-definition of otherwise CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFINED issues? 😀

                    • Joe, I agree with you.

                      If Americans do not care that everything electronic they do is being recorded and saved for USE AGAINST THEM when they choose to speak out against their government overseers, then we truly are screwed…

                      And if Americans do not stand up now, with we mere mortals, then we truly are screwed…

                  • Utah is correct: Lets gather the evidence. Ted Cruz and any patriot who is a former law enforcement agent/attorney are the only ones with even a glimmer of how to do it.

                    If Binney’s reports are true, (as I believe they are)
                    if the recent AP wiretaps are true,
                    if the reports that ALL electronic communications are recorded, for future “fishing trips” by government BUREAUCRATS are true, (which IRS leaks, appear to show are true)
                    if an “executive” authorized the killing of US Citizens by “drone-strike”, not on the field of battle during battle,

                    THEN it doesn’t matter who did it, or under what authority it was done, these actions are Constitutionally Illegal.

                    • Texas,

                      You can present the tape of them killing babies with clubs, but as long as you let these corrupt courts tell you whether or not that clubbing is against the law, you will be standing right next to Utah asking Pin_pin to put himself in jail.

                      or we could all do as MLK and those who marched with him did: link arms, hold up the Declaration and Constitution and scream YOU ARE VIOLATING THE LAW!

                      gentlemen, your fight (and mine) is NOT with the govt, but the people of this nation. If you ask the govt. to police itself, and expect this is possible any more, you have already lost. Our ONLY hope now — at least earthly hope — is a massive and emotional appeal to the better nature of America. If they turn on this govt., we have a chance. But if they don’t — and 56% now agree with this spying — then we are lost and we WILL become the next incarnation of evil, a la 1930’s Germany.

                    • Joe,
                      When the actions of the Government are ILLEGAL,
                      I believe “the People” will not comply.

      • We don’t know that they have done anything “criminal” as defined by the law. I don’t think they have..but what I fear is what they could do with that information and this bunch of mafioso in the White House has proven that they will fight like a honey badger when they are cornered.

        Obama’s first big political victory was secured by the leak of supposedly sealed information about his opponent, Jack Ryan’s divorce from Seven of Nine.

        • Utah,

          We don’t know they have done anything criminal???

          Brother, I KNOW you KNOW the wording of the 4th Amendment. To get a warrant, they MUST HAVE probable cause and name what they are looking for and where they expect to find it. they must also have a sworn oath or affirmation (i.e. someone who says they will find this stuff where they say they will). Now, when was the last time we actually held the govt. to this? And how is allowing them to NOT conform to this NOT illegal???

        • That Info was released by a Judge in California after Ayers, Axlerod and Obama went “Judge-Shopping” …. which seems illegal…..or I guess Sealed ino doesn’t mean anything….even though the Process of a Judges sealing a case it itself legal…… ??????

          Our Govermental system and the Judicial system is broken, there is more evidence every day…. possibly FUBAR.

  2. At first I was onboard with Trump in thinking things weren’t adding up, but given the fever-pitch of how fast this administration is charging after him, I am starting to think that he’s a credible witness whom they feel needs to be silenced.

    I’d like to know why … specifically why. What is it that is so damning that this administration can’t afford to have him say?

    • Augger,

      Ity is just as likely that this guy is both legit and — at the same time — a rabbit we can chase to take the heat off of the IRS/Reportergate/Benghazi scandals.

  3. This post over at AOSHQ sums up my concerns:

    Revealing the truth was allegedly the whole point of Snowden’s decision to turn over top secret material to journalists. If it turns out he was less than truthful, he will have severely damaged U.S. national security for questionable benefit.

    http://minx.cc/?post=340793

    • All he really said was that Phone traffic was being monitered and that the Gov’t looks at people’s E-mails. But that info was kind of reported in various venues already. And Potential and actual terrorists already know that THEIR phones are tracked and/or tapped.

      The Real piece of new info was that the NSA ( and by implication others) was doing the SAME THING to average American Citizens.

      What exactly is damaging to “US national security” about this ??? What he said in the interview was more of a nature of revealing ABUSE of info gathering capabilities.

      • Exactly. I’ve seen no evidence of abuse yet, there are those who are ranting about the program itself but as of yet, I’ve seen nothing that was not allowed by law.

        The point that I have been trying to convey is that we can have the debate about whether the law is constitutional or not but as the program is currently defined and governed, I’ve only seen suggestion that it COULD be abused, not that it has.

        This is not like the IRS issue where there was known abuse and lawsuits/complaints filed before it attained national knowledge.

        Putting too much stock in this Snowden character just because what he says confirms our worst suspicions about the Obama regime could blow up if what he says isn’t corroborated. This has already knocked the other scandals out of the news.

        • So, the Constitution is a living document? It doesn’t mean what is says, it means what we decide it says at any given point?

          This big-net collecting of information without meeting the requirements for the warrant as defined by the 4th Amendment is EXACTLY where and how this NSA crap violates the Constitution. You are defending the trampling of the Constitution, gentlemen. How do you not see this?

        • Discovery can be a long slow Process Utah. In fact there ARE instances were the wrong people were targeted and the “Secret Court” had to stop the “Secret Police” from ensnaring them.

          And people’s Addresses were given out in New York during the anti-Second amendment furry. The IRS gave out Donor lists to a Liberal Site / Organization and Liberals showed up on those Donors doorsteps and threatened them. There is the very real danger of this being just around the corner for all of us with this Spying on American Citizens.

          This Data collection is to intimidate and complie info to silence political opposition …. just like the IRS and EPA harassments and intimidations. One of the Authors of the Patriot Act has said explicitly that this is NOT what the LAW allows.

          Again it is the Press …… Because this is really just a Continuation of all the other Scandals ….. this IS the DOJ out of control…..this IS the IRS out of control… this IS the State Dept out of control ……..the NSA / FISA Court …. Out of Control….. All a part of the Big Picture.

          • And — apparently — ALL “legal.” Because, if it were illegal, the “system” would be putting people in jail. Seen any of the guilty people so much as lose their job over ANY of these scandals yet? Or have you seen them get promotions? How can anyone propose we trust THIS system to save us from itself? Isn’t that the same thing as you being a zebra and expecting to appeal to the lion’s better nature not to eat you???

            • Charlie Wrangel and Tim Giethner are tax Cheats to the tune of half a million to multiple millions owed……Illegal…..no charges….no jail.

              Jon Corzine has been shown to have stolen $2 billion from customers accounts…including ONOINVESTED money being held in Harris Bank accounts……… Illegal……..no charges……no Jail.

              Barney Frank and Chris Dodds assured congressional Committees and the American public that Freddie / Fannie…AIG were absolutely fine and Solvent…. a week before the 2007 collapse and Bankruptcy of all 3……. Lies…..illegal perhaps?……no investigation into them….no Charges…..no Jail.

              The Same can be said of The Officers of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs…..J Diman and L Blankfien ………. swept under the rug with sham investigations …… no charges …..no Jail.

              Eric Holder has lied in the case of Fast and Furious and the Case of FOX’s Rosen phone tapping and harassment / intimidation………….Illegal……no charges……no NOTHING !!

              The list is almost endless of these kinds of examples…………….. Yeah Legal / Not Legal ………. when it becomes a matter of Political / Financial affiliation you (we…the USA) doesn’t HAVE a “Legal” system any more.

  4. This is potentially a great act of civil disobedience. Apparently it is criminal although I can’t say what the crime is, but this is also honorable. Snowden says he has no intention of harming the US. His claims are provocative, that certain NSA operations have little to do with promoting national security, but are creating a framework for tyranny whereby anyone can be identified as a wrong-doer. He has a limited opportunity to make his case. For now the establishment will do everything it can to discredit him and prove him guilty of terrible crimes. We have nothing to lose in speaking up for him and learning everything we can from this rogue agent, while we can.

    • I’m gonna have to roll with Utah on this. He was given an oath to uphold as a CIA employee and to have a TS security clearance and he hasn’t/didn’t do it. If this guy was so concerned about government intrusion, why go to a country with one the most intrusive governments (China)? Good luck with him trying to use his iPhone in Hong Kong. Is anyone concerned about him hooking up with the Chinese government?

      This dude is dangerous. Anyone that thinks that he’s just looking out for the average citizen’s best interest is foolish, IMO.

      Walk into almost any major department store right now with your phone on wireless and guess what? Their access points see you, when your phone attempt to connect to their wireless system and then a sales rep appears. They track your movements and tendencies. They use this to see what you’re most interested in. Ever wonder why you get certain ads and pop ups on your computers?

      If anyone’s at fault it’s the wireless companies. Like Utah said, they sell your information anyway. Anyone ever had to get themselves on a “no contact list” from solicitors? How do you think they got your number? Why do you have to get on a list? Wonder where they got your info from or how they got it? Anyone use Google or Facebook? Got the app on your cell phone? Guess what? They know where you are right now.

      This isn’t new. It was all voted on and signed into law years ago. People didn’t have a problem with it then. Now people have a problem with it? Is it constitutional? If it’s legal it is. It just comes down to whether it benefits one or not. If it stops a terrorist attack, we’re good with it. If it busts a major drug ring, we’re good with it. If you’re cheating on your wife, and she tracks your rendezvous down because you allowed Google to track your location, maybe you’re not so good with that.

      • Then I guess I am a fool. I never said I was giving this guy a pass, but I AM saying we should NOT be making him the focus, but the govt. overreach. As it is, I now see that this is most likely — by design or not — going to serve to push people to defend govt. tyranny over a supposed traitor. We have a President openly committing high treason, but we say nothing because he is black. Now we go after someone who is telling us our govt. is NAZI Germany (YES HELL IT IS!) and we attack him.

        We have forgotten the SPIRIT of our law. We have forgotten the principles and ideals of our Declaration. We have forgotten where our rights come from, and to whom we are accountable. We have placed ourselves above Natural Law. We deserve what is coming…., 😦

        • “but I AM saying we should NOT be making him the focus, but the govt. overreach.”
          I can agree with that BUT he made himself that focus with his statements.

          “We have a President openly committing high treason, but we say nothing because he is black.”
          I see people saying stuff about him daily. If congress doesn’t act, that’s on them. You voted for them, next time maybe you should vote against them. Placing the race card discredits the original statement.

          “Now we go after someone who is telling us our govt. is NAZI Germany (YES HELL IT IS!) and we attack him.”
          This guy isn’t saying anything that’s not already known. People have known about Big Brother for decades. Should he be attacked? Absolutely. He cannot be trusted.

          Some of his statements:
          “Snowden, employed by the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, said he traveled to Hong Kong on May 20 because “they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent.”

          My ass. He must not know where he is.

          “He told the paper that he joined the armed forces in hopes of helping the Iraqi people escape from oppression, but was jarred that his commanders “seemed pumped up about killing Arabs.”

          Interesting.

          • Placing the race card!

            WM, the “race card” is EXACTLY why no one is going to “do anything” about Obama’s TREASON! The very reason Obama was pushed forward is because he is black. What do you think Biden REALLY meant when he praised Obama as a “clean, articulate black man???” He meant that Obama will be and is bullet proof because of “the race card.” And now you say I can’t even point that out without undermining the issue??? I guess the Left was right: Obama can declare himself dictator and anyone who objects will “prove” he is nothing but a racist.

            As for Snowden: how do you KNOW he can’t be trusted??? Do you “have all the facts” about him??? Or are you trusting the govt. and media rather than Snowden??? Again, the Left is right: people will believe anything they tell them to believe.

            LOL, we’re screwed! 🙂

            • “The very reason Obama was pushed forward is because he is black.”
              I’m with you if you can prove that. But you can’t.

              “What do you think Biden REALLY meant when he praised Obama as a “clean, articulate black man???”
              I don’t know what Biden meant. Neither do you. I’m with Judge Judy when she says,”Don’t tell me what someone else thought.” That sounds like Burnie Thompson when he says, “The REAL economy.” My bad. That’s more progressive code Joe was saying for, ” You can’t touch that Negro.”

              “And now you say I can’t even point that out without undermining the issue??”
              You just did point it out. You’re just on the opposite side of the coin from the people that would say, “He got impeached because he was black.” Maybe it would be true and maybe it wouldn’t.

              “As for Snowden: how do you KNOW he can’t be trusted?”
              Because he broke his promise. He’s saying things that are supposed to be confidential.

              “Or are you trusting the govt. and media rather than Snowden???”
              I trusting neither. You’re getting dangerously close to strawman territory though. Obviously, you’re trusting the media since that’s the only way you can get information about Snowden. Oh, you mean the media that you don’t believe in.

              “Again, the Left is right: people will believe anything they tell them to believe.”
              I believe what my mind tells me to believe. I also know if this guy thinks, which he stated, that he has more freedoms in Hong Kong then something is wrong there. I know first hand about they’re censoring and cell phone monitoring.

              Looking at trends is not illegal. Once it’s in cyberspace it’s fair game. If they’re looking at numbers with no names and addresses then that’s not illegal. For those that think that it is, you better start reading cell phone contract and software disclaimers instead of just clicking, “Yes, I agree” when prompted.

              • 1 — No, I can’t know what they were thinking — but I can let experience guide me in determining what they most likely meant. This covers why Obama was put forward and what Biden said: the preponderance of the evidence supports my take.

                2 — If I present the definition of treason, show how he has committed it and the evidence supporting the same, it doesn’t matter if the man is pink with purple polka dots, he would have been charged and convicted on definition and evidence — NOT the color of his skin. At that point, if they claim he got impeached because he was black, THEY would actually be showing themselves to be racist — because all they see is skin color rather than actions.

                3 — There is NO law that can tell you that you MUST stay quiet if you know about an on-going crime or intent to commit a crime. Not even the attorney/client privilege extends to these circumstances. So, unless we show Snowden is lying, which requires us to make sure the NSA is NOT doing what he claims, then we cannot even accuse Snowden of a crime in this case.

                4 — He DOES have more protection in Hong Kong. They have laws protecting whistle blowers. Besides, I have business partners in Hong Kong. they ARE more free than we are, WM. It’s sad, but it is true.

                5 — If it is “fair game” because it is in cyberspace, then there is NO security — for ANYTHING! If there is no “intellectual property rights” attached to what is in cyber space, then there can be no such thing in your mind or on paper. You just made the case for eliminating private property and patents.

                • “but I can let experience guide me in determining what they most likely meant”
                  –Recipe for disaster since your opinion is biased. There’s no evidence to support your claim.

                  “If I present the definition of treason, show how he has committed it and the evidence supporting the same, it doesn’t matter if the man is pink with purple polka dots, he would have been charged and convicted on definition and evidence.”
                  –There are other presidents that you could produce evidence according to the definition of treason and they weren’t impeached. Why is that? My bad, Willy got impeached for getting some strange head.

                  “THEY would actually be showing themselves to be racist — because all they see is skin color rather than actions.”
                  –Or they would also see that same evidence that could have been used against previous presidents that were never impeached.

                  “There is NO law that can tell you that you MUST stay quiet if you know about an on-going crime ”
                  –I said promise not law. Secondly do you know that a crime has been committed or there has been intent?

                  “He DOES have more protection in Hong Kong. they ARE more free than we are.”
                  –Tell that to Apple. Or the people that want to read certain books on their iPads. HK may operate differently the mainland China but they still have shut down ISPs and the still monitor citizens email and calls the same way. Hong Kong has to deal with the mainland on many issues so even though things are a bit more free there that doesn’t mean the mainland doesn’t have influence of it’s actions.

                  “If it is “fair game” because it is in cyberspace, then there is NO security”
                  –Security is the key.

                  • –Recipe for disaster since your opinion is biased. There’s no evidence to support your claim.

                    No evidence?

                    “We are 5 days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING the United States of America!”

                    Yeah, no evidence at all….

                    Have you hear Maxine Waters in her interview telling us that the system of surveillance Obama has put in place will be left for the next Democrat to use against his/her political enemies?

                    Do you remember Obama saying he was going to punish his enemies? Or telling his supporters to get in the face of his enemies? Have you seen that he has been using their IRS as just 1 way he does this? the EPA as well.

                    No evidence that this man was chosen to make the Left’s agenda bullet proof? How many times have you heard his supporters claim that anyone and everyone who opposes him does so because they are racist?

                    No evidence?

                    WM, when it comes to ANY matter of race, YOU are the one who goes blind.

                    • All that might have happened. But it’s still doesn’t prove your original statements are factual. They were:

                      Obama won’t be impeached because he is black (or no one will saying anything about his treason) or “a clean articulate black man” wasn’t meant just that.
                      — You’ve strayed off target. You’re saying what you believe but is not a fact. Stick to what you said and I responded to not all of the other political rhetoric that Obama and others have spewed over the last 5 years. It’s irrelevant since it’s not up to him whether he’s impeached or not and he didn’t say the other statement Biden did. You even admitted that you can’t prove that so let’s move on.

                      “How many times have you heard his supporters claim that anyone and everyone who opposes him does so because they are racist?”
                      –I’ve heard part of that statement plenty of times. I’ve never heard with “anyone and everyone” included, though. I heard it from some of his supporters in the media that you don’t trust until it benefits you. How do you know they really said that? Still proves nothing.

                      “WM, when it comes to ANY matter of race, YOU are the one who goes blind.”
                      –Bullshit. You just don’t like it when I call you out on things concerning race because you don’t think your thoughts through. You interjected it for no good reason just like the people (Obama supporters) that say a person is racist that opposes Obama. What does that say about me then? Am I racist too? I don’t agree with you but I’m surely not blind by any means. I would definitely say that with complete confidence. You were the one with the blind assertion not I.

                      Racism is driven by emotion. It cannot be analyzed via logic and reason because it is neither logical nor reasonable. Logic and reason you don’t have a problem with but you do when it comes to dealing with things based on emotion. To make a flip statement like that is unlike you until it comes to these types of subjects. Obama could be impeached tomorrow or two years from now and then you’ll be scrambling trying to backtrack and give all these reasons why it did happen even though you said it wouldn’t. Come back in 3 years and say, “Obama WASN’T impeached because he was black” and you’ll have no dispute from me because there’s a chance that you would be correct.

                    • WM,

                      I heard Rush say this is the case (and we know he has connections with the leadership of the R’s — even though he’ll say otherwise). Nor have we seen a SINGLE Congressman move for impeachment — even though ALL the evidence they need is already in Congressional record. If this were a case before a DA, they would have a slam-dunk case on their hands. Were it not Obama we’re talking about, a law school student could win this one.

  5. Yes, but hasn’t he provided more information to journalists that has yet to be revealed? All we have now are outlandish claims. Snowden must provide evidence to support his statements, or it is meaningless. Based on what he said, I would speculate he intends to show that people are doing things they are not supposed to be doing with privileged information, kind of like the IRS targeting.

  6. I’m not disagreeing on that, Joe. I’m just saying how do you prove it? There’s more to it than just race. Remember the Civil War just wasn’t about slavery—if at all. At least on the Union side.

    The R’s know they will feel the wrath if they move to impeach. They know the Senate won’t convict. They will look foolish and that’s also a factor. Hell, you, I and everyone else knows that ignorant black people will be in the streets setting shit on fire and turning over cars for no reason or reasons they have no clue about. They also know what will happen when the next R is in White House. See, you have people the put party ahead of everything else. You guys continue to support party. I don’t understand that.

    Those are factors, Joe, that also weigh in on why they won’t move on impeachment. I also left out that they want their opportunity to be King too. It’s not just a racial thing.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.