Whether We Say It Is From January 2009, Or Since Sometime In 2010, Obama OWNS the NSA Scandal

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/27/woodward_secret_government_under_obama_administration_needs_to_be_reviewed.html#ooid=1qODdnZzrEfTyZIu_N3mO5gWpz0uy_5b

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/27/woodward_secret_government_under_obama_administration_needs_to_be_reviewed.html

SCHIEFFER: The first thing that agencies tend to do is try to make sure they can't be blamed for something. And, clearly, that is why the FBI and the CIA did not come clean with the Warren commission, and why maybe they didn't even tell the agents in Dallas what was going on.

WOODWARD: Well, initially, in the Watergate cover-up, part of the argument was, 'Oh, you'll expose convert operations in Mexico,' because they were laundering $89,000 of money that helped finance Watergate. I think there's a theme here in all of this that you have laid out that connects somewhat to what's going on now. And that is the power of this secret world -- CIA, FBI -- particularly in what you've looked at, Phil, the assassination plots against Castro. I mean, it's stunning, and this information really didn't get to the Warren commission. And it's not saying that Castro did it, but that there's all this secrecy and the people at the top or the people investigating the commission does not get the evidence.

We look now at what's going on with all the NSA wiretapping and people saying, 'Well, they didn't know, or they did know.' It clearly is much more extensive than people expected. You connect this with the drone strikes in Pakistan, and Yemen, which is our government conducting regular assassinations by air. You know, what's -- what's going on here? Who is in control of it? And who can find out? You know, I think -- it's in the New York Times this morning that there is a review that Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser for Obama, has done on Mid-East policy. They need to review this secret world and its power in their government because you run into this rats nest of concealment and lies time and time again, then and now.

The question that the Mainstream Liberal Media pose is beginning to be exposed through the NSA Scandal that broke in June 2013.  The UK telegraph reports that Obama clearly KNEW of the NSA spy program -- as he always wants to blame somebody else -- in 2010, and that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's calls  (as well as 35 other world leaders calls and e-mails) were being recorded  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10407282/Barack-Obama-approved-tapping-Angela-Merkels-phone-3-years-ago.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/27/barack-obama-nsa-angela-merkel-germany

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

and transcribed and the verbal information then passed around as needed

on a need to know basis.  This insight was leaked and made known from not only Ed Snowden in documentation as yet unpublished to Journalists in Germany and France,

http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/10/21/france-in-the-nsa-s-crosshair-phone-networks-under-surveillance_3499741_651865.html

 but also involves corroborative document and witness to U.S. Embassy NSA related document sources within the United States Embassy in Berlin, Germany; the same embassy which those documents given by Ed Snowden and others to Der Spiegel that showed the U.S. Embassy in Berlin also doubled as an  NSA listening station, 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsa-spied-on-merkel-cell-phone-from-berlin-embassy-a-930205.html

and that Der Spiegel and Le Monde apparently have MORE leaked U.S. top secret NSA documents than they are willing to now reveal,  to back it up.   Multiple nations having documentation and corroborative official or former official sources.  That means it is vetted.   On the other hand, we have no reason to believe any NSA denials at this time, because their track record has been that when they say no, they mean yes they did, even under oath to Congress, and with as yet not a single repercussion for their perjurious testimony.  It is clear Obama was informed in 2010 for certain, and at that point forward, he made the choices he made.  Obama himself is now internationally known to be such a pathological liar by even world leaders who are our allies, that any denial on his part no longer carries any weight beyond the "chance of perhaps a remote credibility", which diplomatically means (to those world leaders abroad): his word is dung, kolicashitz, or whatever word you wish to call it.      

That means that for a minimum of 3 plus years, Obama OWNS the violations of the Constitution of the United States with the NSA Scandal. 

The NSA has been gradually increasing its data collection abilities by secret court warrants since 2004 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/why-the-fisa-court-is-unconstitutional/

and then gaining whole service provider waivers under President George W. Bush's Administration beginning on the 6th Anniversary of 9-11  in 2007.

But under Obama, instead of stopping the program within days of his illegally obtaining the Office of The Presidency by fraud, Obama green-lighted the NSA to increase its information sweep all the more.  It is as if all the restraints upon the NSA were taken down, given monster steroids and PCP, and unleashed in order to see if it could achieve the ultimate unrestrained data collection imaginable and beyond imaginable.  


The following once top secret but now public domain graphic among others has been published world-wide and shows the time-line of when service provider collection dates by the NSA began under the new data collection system.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/

Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the misinformation that the NSA, like the private sector, does the optional and voluntary data dump after 5 years of records retention, 

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/inner-workings-of-a-top-secret-spy-program/282/

since they operate by a different set of rules as if above the Law.  But the NSA could still argue a retention within the Law to the effect that they can follow State examples, such as if often argued by attorneys at the Circuit Court level.    For example, the NSA  might argue that 50 year retention is an acceptable retention time, since Alcohol Beverage Control laws -- by example, in the state of California -- require those conviction for clerks selling alcohol to a minor to be retained by various State, Interstate, and Federal Law Enforcement for a minimum of 50 years.  That is, 50 years wrongful alcohol sale record retention that stays with the individual in states like California, for example, where it such a misdemeanor conviction  is to be treated as if on the same felony record retention level as murder, even though it is generally a $1,000 plus fine with community service and no to generally less than 6 months  misdemeanor jail time (if any).  So if record retention of a small piece of information goes on the employment record that essentially bans that person from ever working as a clerk around or in the sale of alcohol and tobacco products ever again is meant to be retained, why not every other miniscule bit of information of that person's life for the "needs of the Government" to make an informed determination upon an individual at any time.  The NSA can also argue regarding secret records retention, such as on JFK's Assassination, given 50 years retention from its seal to 2017, or that the State of Arizona issues Driver's Licenses with 50 year expiration dates.  So, that being the NSA reasoning, the NSA could make the legal argument later on by posing, why would the NSA data dump anything less old than that same 50 years retention from the time they start collecting into the storage capacities able to retain them if State and Federal Agencies retain or are already presumed to retain individual and collective information records for at least 50 years time?   

But where does it all end?  

 We have already gone from an understanding as a collective news watching people from where we saw that there was an NSA admission that virtually all Americans might be being spied upon in July 2013,

http://www.infowars.com/nsa-spokesman-accidentally-admits-that-the-government-is-spying-on-virtually-all-americans/

to what is now certainty and an international dozens of governments and world-wide media general knowledge in October 2013 that virtually every phone call on the planet is being swooped up by the NSA, and every American is not only being monitored by phone, but by every other internet or phone connected device that requires an off-site communication to somewhere else (not being a closed, in site land-line connection, for example).

 On July 6, 2012, Obama himself upped the ante of his NSA "totally in" authorization and involvement by signing a certain related Executive Order to the same effect as what the NSA was already doing with his authorization.  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/06/executive-order-assignment-national-security-and-emergency-preparedness-

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6180/obama-signs-executive-order-giving-him-and-federal-government-control-of-all-forms-of-communication-under-any-circumstance/

 Now if Obama  wants to wear diapers, rename them "man diapers" to support his girly-man masculinity-side ego, and go "thhhwwwwt" in his pants like Al Roker, who up and brags about his own pants pooping at the White House, 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/01/08/al-roker-i-pooped-my-pants-at-the-white-house/1817021/

then Obama needs to resign the Presidency, because he thereby expresses he is incapable or incompetent to the office.   On the flip-side, if Obama (who by the way is registered to vote @ 1400 Pennsylvania Ave in D.C. as Barry Soetoro, his Indonesian Citizenship name) wishes to be an Executive, which he presumes under the title he usurped in "President";  then he needs to own up to the NSA Scandal and accept he can be legally impeached by Congress if enough upset Democrats, liberals,  and special interest liberals turn on him on this NSA Spyware issue.  

--------------------------------------------------------

Temporary Diversion: 

A Day @ the Races     




[Updated at 6:40 am Pacific with more readable hyper-links and an edited paragraph for better clarity.]