« | »

Obama Sponsored Bill Banning Call Data Collection

First we have this rear guard action from Obama’s praetorian guard at the Politico:

‘Bush’s 4th term’

By GLENN THRUSH | June 6, 2013 

The outrage over President Barack Obama’s authorization of a nearly limitless federal dive into Americans’ phone records obscures a hiding-in-plain-sight truth about the 44th president many of his supporters have overlooked for years:

For all his campaign-trail talk of running the “most transparent administration” in U.S history, Obama never promised to reverse the 43rd president’s policies on domestic anti-terrorism surveillance — and he’s been good on his word.

Yes, he did. Repeatedly. In fact, Obama promised to reverse Bush’s policies early and often. (For one example, see below.)

Obama’s effort to strike what he’s repeatedly called “a balance” between personal liberty and homeland security has exposed what amounts to a split political personality: Candidate Obama often spoke about personal freedom with the passion of a constitutional lawyer — while Commander-in-Chief Obama has embraced and expanded Bush-era surveillance efforts like the 2011 extension of the Patriot Act, which paved the way for a secret court order allowing the gathering of Verizon phone records.

Isn’t it ironic? Obama has turned out to be everything the left pretended George Bush was — and wasn’t. In fact, Obama has turned out to be everything the left pretended Richard Nixon was — and wasn’t.

In an irony now being savored by his conservative critics, Obama administration officials are now relying on Republicans to defend him against charges from liberals and the libertarian right that he’s recklessly prioritized national security over personal liberty…

No, the real irony is watching the news media contort themselves to try to blame Bush for Obama’s actions.

Meanwhile, we have this friendly reminder, via The Hill:

Obama sponsored bill that would have made Verizon order illegal

By Brendan Sasso | June 6, 2013

President Obama co-sponsored legislation when he was a member of the Senate that would have banned the mass collection of phone records that his administration is now engaged in.

The SAFE Act, introduced by former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), would have amended the Patriot Act to require that the government have "specific and articulable facts" to show that a person is an "agent of a foreign power" before seizing their phone records.

The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee in 2005, but never received a vote. It had 15 co-sponsors in all, including then-Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who are now members of Obama’s Cabinet.

Experts said the bill that Obama supported in the Senate would have prohibited the sweeping surveillance that has come to light at the National Security Agency (NSA)…

And, as we previously mentioned, despite the Politico’s claims to the contrary, Obama often spoke of overturning Bush’s surveillance policies. Such as during this campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on October 29, 2007:

I will overturn Bush executive orders that "encroach on civil liberties

OBAMA: … When I’m President, one of the first things I’m going to do is call in my Attorney General and say to him or her: I want you to review every Executive Order that’s been issued by George Bush, whether it relates to warrantless wiretaps or detaining people, or reading emails or whatever it is. I want you to go through every single one of them, and if they are unconstitutional, if they’re encroaching on civil liberties unnecessarily, we are going to overturn them.

But that was then, and this is now.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, June 7th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Obama Sponsored Bill Banning Call Data Collection”

  1. yadayada

    Richard Nixon: And I have always mantained what they were doing, what we’re all doing was not criminal. Look, when you’re in office you gotta do a lot of things sometimes that are not always in the strictest sense of the law, legal, but you do them because they’re in the greater interest of the nation.

    David Frost: Alright wait, wait just so I understand correctly, are you really saying that in certain situations the President can decide whether it’s in the best interest of the nation and then do something illegal…

    Richard Nixon: I’m saying that when the President does it, that means it’s “not” illegal!

  2. canary

    The hell he did. Facebook made it clear several years ago they were aiding in terrorists.
    And google that started their new google which I refused to sign up for because it had cookies, and govt knew about it, and then pure fabricated b.s. that the govt got on to them and they quit doing it, to make people think they aren’t doing it.

    The Boston bombers and mama complaining the FBI were following them and so they their original plans was 4th of July, so they moved it up.

    Announcing we are being followed, then Obama saying oh no, it was just for terrorist, means just as overseas we are being used as sitting ducks to draw them out.

    Just as Al-Qaeda prisoners keep being released from Gitmo and Saudi, Egypt, you name it,
    it’s just to follow them and so what if a few civilian casualties get killed in the process.

    Just like bleeping announcing our U.S. Troops are leaving Afghanistan when it was insane and led to more US Soldiers deaths, America is being used to draw them out.

    So, now if Islamic terrorist attacks Obama will say see what happened when I quit the phone tapping. So, people will go back to tapping.

    We knew in 2009 DHS put military vets, tea partys on low risk threats so they had an excuse.

    Just as the Benghazi massacre happened, and security taken away as to not kill the attackers, because it was more important to watch them for months.

    Americans are expendable at this point.

    Look at Maj. Hasan and Ft. Hood. Called “workplace violence” as to not tip of Al-Qaeda he communicated and that was before his just admitting he was helping ole Omar leader of Taliban.

    The people running this country want Marshall law just like they did in Russia.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »