Edward Snowden Big Brother NSA Whistleblower, Ron Paul Donor

STOP BIG BROTHER
(turn it upside down
if you don't get it.)
Click for tshirt

Edward Snowden is the NSA Whistleblower. The Guardian provided a video interview from Hong Kong with the former intelligence worker allowing him to explain his motivations. It is well worth watching. The headline of the interview is:

'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things'

(For those of you on a SLOBS App, the video is an enclosure.)

Also of note is the fact that Mr.Snowden is a Ron Paul Contributor (h/t Buzzfeed) :

Twitter exploded with the #IStandWithEdwardSnowden and #Snowden comments. In the interest of brevity, we leave it to you to to explore all the commentary. Occupy Wall Street is a major supporter of Mr. Snowden, which creates some interesting common ground. The NSA, IRS, DOJ, EPA and other scandals have revealed what this blog has alluded to, we are on the verge of a police state.

Commentary

The tea party supports the Constitutional Rule of Law, but we are apparently beyond that now.  It is time to consider the dangers exposed by curbing our intelligence agencies. We have known for years that the NSA monitors all electronic communication. There is no shock to the recent revelations. Hindering these operations would put us at increased risk as a people. The point is, SO WHAT?

Risk and fear are a part of life and even our super-powered government isn't immune. Consider a recent tweet we received:

@doodooecon @lawlynn33 If gov't wasn't afraid to call out radical Islam and to PROFILE bad guys, #NSA / PRISM wouldn't even be necessary!
— Sheryl (@get2thegulch) June 9, 2013

Free people must live in risk and danger. America use to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." those two descriptors go hand and hand. It IS time to discuss the level of risk each free person must be expected to endure to preserve freedom. 

Personally, I would rather legally carry a loaded handgun than rely on police. From my point of view, not only would my person be more safe and secure, but every citizen around me would be better off, including the police. There are choices a reasonable person should be expected to make. Housing, healthcare, personal protection, protection of property, retirement planning, and end of life planning are a fraction of the responsibilities free people traditionally embrace.  

Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, volcanoes, and asteroids are risks inherent to all life, but planning (or not) for them is a responsibility for critically thinking free people. Terrorism, organized crime, foreign invasion and corrupt government are similarly risks inherent in our world. They are risks which our Constitution balanced with individual freedom. The question is whether Americans remain brave enough to take on the responsibilities of freedom or will fear push us into the false security of the police state. Individually, we cannot defeat terrorism, crime or war but again, SO WHAT? 

Mankind is not on earth to stop people from making wrong or even evil choices. We are here to make choices for ourselves. That is humanity. No government or community or village can make our decisions for us if we are to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The economics of freedom do not allow for that, reward comes with risk.

Your choice is simple, sell our freedom for security like Edward Snowden had done, or realize as quickly as you can that there is no adequate compensation for surrendering humanity. 

Allow me to put it another way. Either work for freedom or accept fate. But beware, fate is decided by whoever has the greatest lust for power.

Back to the Subject at Hand

For putting his own life at risk opposing the most powerful forces on earth, Edward Snowden is a Tienanmen square tank man. I disagree with him regarding China, but his courage or foolishness is admirable. He was smart to go public, but it didn't save...

Obama Explains Why The President Must Be Held Accountable In Benghazi

President Obama spoke moments ago about leaks that put national security at risk. His remarks also describe in detail how his beauty sleep prior to a Vegas fund raiser put national security at risk and cost the lives of brave Americans in Benghazi. This comment goes a long way in explaining why the Obama administration is lying to the American people about Benghazi.

To be, uhh, clear, President Obama was talking about leaks relating to CIA operations similar to the Benghazi, Libya operation in which America armed and trained Al Qaeda and other groups in order to overthrow various governments and then allocated $40 million to track down and buy back heavy weapons.

"They can put men and women in uniform that I have sent into the battlefield at risk.

They can put, uhh, some of our intelligence officers, who are various dangerous situations that are easily compromised, at risk.

U.S. national security, uhh, is, uhh, dependent on those folks being able to operate with confidence that folks back home have their backs. So they are not just left out there 'high and dry,' uhh, and potentially put in even more danger than they may already be.

uhh, and so, I make no apologies and I don't think the American people would expect me, as Commander-In-Chief, not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed.

The flip side of it is, we also live in a democracy, uhh, where a free press, free expression, uhh, and, uhh, the open flow of information helps hold me accountable, helps hold our government accountable and helps our democracy function. Uhh, and, ya know, the whole reason I got involved in politics is because I believe so deeply in democracy and that process.

...(edited for length)

When we express concern about leaks at a time when I have still got 60,000 plus troops in Afghanistan. uhh, and I've still got a whole bunch of intelligence officers around the world who are in risky situations,uhh, in outposts, uhh that uhh in some cases are as dangerous as the outpost in Benghazi. Uhh, that part of my job is to make sure that, uhh, we are protecting what they do. Uhh, while still accommodating for the need for, uhh, information. So,... or for the need for the public to be informed and be able to hold, uhh uhh my office accountable."

In the event that you, the, uhh, reader, might think this is being taken out of context, here is a Bloomberq reporter asking about the IRS scandal and President Obama's unresponsive answer. This is simply to make the point that the man is again lying.

Reporter: "Mr. President, I want to ask you about the IRS. Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agencies action before your council's office found out on April 22nd."

President Obama: "I can assure you that, uhh, I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through press, uhh through the press."

The reason President Obama makes these implied acknowledgements that the White House knew about the targeting of conservative groups is simple. He is not held accountable. Consider the AP headline on this statement which relies upon people NOT reading the story:

BREAKING: Obama assures he did not know about IRS political targeting before reports became public.
— The Associated Press (@AP) May 16, 2013