RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Greenwald writes: "The continuously expanding Surveillance State in the United States is easily one of the most consequential and under-discussed political developments. And few are doing more to ensure it continues than top-level Obama national security officials."

President Barack Obama delivers remarks during a rally in Largo, Maryland, 03/15/12. (photo: Getty Images)
President Barack Obama delivers remarks during a rally in Largo, Maryland, 03/15/12. (photo: Getty Images)

go to original article your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+6 # MendoChuck 2012-05-27 11:03
Will this ever stop?
What a sham this is to our constitution and to the oath of office these elected representatives swore to uphold . . . .
+4 # jwb110 2012-05-27 11:42
It's all beginning to look like to old Soviet Union.
+3 # geraldom 2012-05-27 11:44
In order to get elected president, Barack Obama promised us change that we could believe in, implying that he would reverse course against what the Bush administration did. Obama makes wonderful speeches, but it's his actions that truly matter. The following are examples of what Obama is truly about, what his true agenda is:

“U.S. Asks Judge to Undo Ruling Against Military Detention Law”

“Supreme Court to Hear Government Eavesdropping Appeal”

"Supreme Court Rules for Government On Immigrants' Residence"

“U.S. Top Court Decides in Vitro Fertilization Benefits”

Obama cannot be trusted at his word. It's as simple that.
+3 # walt 2012-05-27 15:09
It is still amazing how Obama has abandoned so many of his promises to include this one along with war, the economy, Guantanamo, Wall Street, drones, tax cuts, and more.

The only conclusion one can rationally make is that he is the consummate politician who has said and done all to placate his opposition and gain re-election. He did promise to be a one term president if that was what it took to make change. Guess not!
+2 # geraldom 2012-05-27 22:01
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Obama has abandoned his promises in order to placate his opposition. What happened in November of 2010 proves that. Obama lost control of the House of Representatives big-time and now has a smaller Democratic majority in the Senate because he as well as the Congressional Democrats betrayed their voting base. By acting like Republicans, they did not gain any support from the extreme right and lost much of their support from the left.

Obama's true agenda appears to be more to the right than centrist or left of center. I believe that Obama's actions is what he really is and not to just simply placate his opposition.
+3 # walt 2012-05-28 06:06
Yes, Harold, but that 2010 landslide opposition vote was based on peoples' dissatisfaction with him. When he walked away from real health care reform and when he sent more troops to Afghanistan, many abandoned hope in him. Very sad for those who put so much faith in him.
+2 # geraldom 2012-05-28 10:06
Quoting walt:
Yes, Harold, but that 2010 landslide opposition vote was based on peoples' dissatisfaction with him. When he walked away from real health care reform and when he sent more troops to Afghanistan, many abandoned hope in him. Very sad for those who put so much faith in him.

Walt, that is exactly what I meant, that what happened in 2010 was Obama's betrayal of his voting base as well as those people outside of his voting base, the so-called independents, who believed in him & his (unfortunately false) promises.

What I disagree with is that his betrayal was primarily based on attempting to placate his opposition, the Republican Party & their voting base in an attempt to win over some of that base. If that is what he tried to do, then he was an idiot and a fool.

What I contend is that Obama, in the end, turned out to be a DINO, a Democrat In Name Only, & that his actions, his decisions, have been based on his true ideology, that he's not that much different than that of Bush or Cheney.

I condemn the Democratic leaders in Congress, people like Nancy Pelosi of the House & Harry Reid of the Senate, & all of the other Congressional Democratic Lemmings who followed him off of the proverbial cliff rather than trying to talk some sense into him, for what good it would have done, in order to avoid the disaster that took place in November of 2010, and the disaster that might take place come this November.
+2 # walt 2012-05-30 06:20
Good points, Harold. Basically I think we may agree that both parties have abandoned the people. Obama and the Democrats play the politics game and rarely stand firm for what is right if it means risking an election. It's time for a new party, in my opinion. The goal must be "government of, by, and for the people."
+3 # cordleycoit 2012-05-27 15:52
How come the site is blacked out or are we censoring our selves these days.Salon represents a closed Internet one that compies with our President's desire to stop dissent. I understood Clintons taking away of rights and of course W would crush sissent. So why are you Glenn surprised when Obama does it. Government's redefined job is to crush the people. Remember the Roman Republic as it was crushed by the corporate masters. This is not a new problem.
+2 # 666 2012-05-28 07:58
When asked by "liberal" friends why I wouldn't vote for BO in '08 - and why I won't for him in '12, this has been and remains part of exhibit 1.
- A vote for the lesser of 2 evils is still a vote for evil. Remember when your parents told you "two wrongs don't make one right?" It's pretty much the same concept.
- If you believe this kind of govt is evil, then you have a moral obligation to support someone else.
- If you're OK with rationalizing away your rights because you think we'll lose less with obama then the mittster, then don't bitch when you don't have anymore rights at all.
0 # geraldom 2012-05-28 17:38
So why will you be voting for Mitt Romney? I supported & I voted for Obama in 2008 for 2 reasons. I was foolish enough to believe that he was sincere about what he promised us, and, yes, I also felt that a McCain presidency with Sarah Palin as his VP would've been a much greater disaster than an Obama admin that failed to carry out the promises he had made, & I still feel that way today.

As bad as the Dems have become since the Bush admin, they'll always be the lesser of 2 evils when compared to what the Republican Party has become & is presently offering us, guaranteed more unending war at the expense of the most vulnerable of us in this country, the poor, the starving, & the sick, & a greater disparagement between the rich & the poor, not to mention more racist policies & further destruction of separation of church & state, as well as further destruction to our environment.

I happen to be of the Jewish faith, & I firmly & strongly believe in separation of church & state where no one religion in this country can dictate their rules or laws upon all other religious faiths in this country.

Separation of church & state is one of the most important tenets in our Bill of Rights. Our Bill of Rights allows us to worship our religious beliefs in our own way, but it also strictly prohibits our govt from establishing rules & laws and policies based on any one religion to be dictated upon all others as a Repub admin will force upon us.
+1 # futhark 2012-05-28 19:33
Mr. Mencher, I shared your concern, which is why I voted for Cynthia McKinney in 2008 after Senator Obama supported FISA.

Stop voting for evil, even the lesser. The lesser evil must be accountable for its evil and be shown that its actions are not acceptable. I joined the "Blue Republicans" this year in voting for Ron Paul in the primary, hoping that if enough Paul supporters reach the Republican convention they can spoil Willard Romney's coronation party. Dr. Paul is the only major party candidate willing to speak the truth about the failure of our government to protect the Bill of Rights and the failure of military interventionism as a means to promote a safer and healthier world.
0 # geraldom 2012-05-28 21:17
I, like you, liked Cynthia McKinney the best of all the candidates running for the office of president, but, unlike you, I felt that I had no choice but to vote for Obama. It's what I call the "Ralph Nader" syndrome. I knew what we would be in for if GWB won the election and nothing that has happened since GWB won in 2000 was any surprise to me. That was why GWB had to lose. If Ralph Nader had not run for president in 2000, splitting the Democratic vote, Al Gore would have won instead.

As much as I would have like to see Cynthia McKinney win the presidency in the 2008 presidential election, I knew that she had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and I couldn't tolerate a McCain/Palin administration, not after 8 years of Bush/Cheney. My choice, as was the choice of many others, was to vote for Cynthia McKinney and split the Democratic vote as Ralph Nader did in 2000 and possibly give the win to John McCain, or to bite the bullet and vote for Obama.

It was an extremely difficult choice to make because, in our electoral system, a vote for a 3rd party candidate can only spoil the win for either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but not both.

I like Ron Paul, but I find one critical fault in him. He is ready and willing to dismantle completely all of the entitlements that many Americans critically depend on for their very survival.
0 # 666 2012-05-29 06:54
Clearly you didn't get the message: the 2-party system is at the root of the Gordian knot. ANY vote for evil (either party) is, IMO, a moral wrong. You can't fix or accommodate evil.
0 # geraldom 2012-05-29 11:59
So what do you suggest we do, 666? What is your solution to the problem of our 2-party system short of a major 1776-style revolution in this country?

Allow me to tell you the facts of life, what the real world is like. First of all, unless we can immediately & instantaneously change the electoral college system (ECS) to distribute the votes proportionally in all states of the union rather than have an all or nothing system as we do now, or get rid of the ECS altogether & allow a direct simple majority vote by the American public nationwide to choose the winner of the presidential race, we will forever be stuck with our 2-party system.

But, even before reforming the ECS, or ridding ourselves of it altogether, we will first have to repeal HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, passed by the Bush admin with the (unfortunate) support of the (foolish and idiotic) Dems which now legally requires & forces all 50 states to use unverifiable and, in many cases, fraudulent & corrupt paperless e-voting machines which are programmed by corporations that have their own personal agenda.

The Dems, after the 2008 presidential election, had their chance to either reform or eliminate the ECS & to repeal HAVA & require the use of paper ballots counted by human eyes & hands, but they failed to do so.

So, I ask you again, what do you suggest we do to resolve the crisis, legally that is? I'm open for suggestions. I'm a realist!
+2 # futhark 2012-05-28 19:05
Obama is not part of the solution to the problem of the security state mentality and the dominance of the Military-Indust rial Complex...he is part of the problem, having embraced these twin enemies of liberty and constitutional government from the very beginning. This is why I refuse to support or vote for this man. He could have had a truly transformationa l presidency had he decided to fulfill the ambitions of most of his 2008 supporters to reduce militarism, provide more genuine transparency in government, and honor the Bill of Rights. Instead, he has gone down the same road as the preceding Cheney/Bush administration on these issues.

Hooray for Glenn Greenwald and his unfailing willingness to critique Mr. Obama openly and honestly!

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.