Obama Promise To 'Protect Whistleblowers' Just Disappeared From Change.gov

from the not-the-change-we-were-looking-for dept

The folks from the Sunlight Foundation have noticed that the Change.gov website, which was set up by the Obama transition team after the election in 2008 has suddenly been scrubbed of all of its original content. They noted that the front page had pointed to the White House website for a while, but you could still access a variety of old material and agendas. They were wondering why the administration would suddenly pull all that interesting archival information… and hit upon a clue. A little bit from the “ethics agenda”:

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

Yeah. That statement seems a bit embarrassing at the very same time Obama’s administration is threatening trade sanctions against anyone who grants asylum to Ed Snowden. Also… at the same time that we get to see how whistleblower Bradley Manning’s “full access to courts and due process” will turn out. So far, it’s been anything but reasonable, considering that the UN has already condemned Manning’s treatment as “cruel and inhuman.” And people wonder why Snowden left the country…

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Obama Promise To 'Protect Whistleblowers' Just Disappeared From Change.gov”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re:

He even beats the corruption that Richard Nixon held. This is way above and beyond reasoning and what any other US president has ever done to screw the nation over…even Herbert Hoover (responsible for the Stock Market Crash of 1929) is smiling that he’s been relieved of the notoriety of screwing this nation royal.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

While that’s true..the 2008 Amendment only extended it to spying on US citizens calling from foreign soil. FISA 2010 is the one that caused the total spying.

Wally, I keep telling you to stop making strong claims when you’re wrong. The bulk data collection that people are talking about was initiated in 2007. Yes, on Americans. In 2007. As admitted by Dianne Feinstein, a major supporter of the program. http://thehill.com/homenews/news/303891-senators-nsa-phone-sweeping-has-been-going-on-since-2007

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Good, let’s get the year right, but lets not overlook the political party of Dianne Feinstein – it’s a bipartisan effort, always has been, but ultimately the buck stops with the one that is keeping these things in place, extending them, not rolling them back, not speaking out against them, but calling people traitors for speaking or acting against them. I’m referring of course to the current president, George W. Obama.

Richard_A_GA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

@Mekongcola – Let’s not forget that in both Presidential campaigns Obama promised to do away with the kinds of surveillance, detention programs, and extrajudicial abductions/renditions/interrogation practices of the Bush administration. Instead, he insisted that increasingly abusive executive extrajudicial power over both US citizens and foreigners be included in the NDAAs that have been passed since 2009; plus increasing the reach of NSA surveillance; plus increasing the use of detention; plus taking deliberate focused action against all whistle-blowers who have revealed improper or illegal actions by his administration. He couldn’t have done more if Dick Cheney had been retained as his personal adviser for secrecy and retribution. He doesn’t get a free pass just because Bush started it. Bush may have started it, but Obama could have ended it and did not, instead knowingly choosing to make it worse.

BTW – I’m not a Republican or Tea Party troll. I am a regretful 2 time voter for Obama; feeling frustrated and abandoned seeing the number of Constitutional rights that have been compromised under the Obama administration. As a trained Constitutional lawyer, one can only conclude that he has known exactly what he and his administration have done and has decided the Constitution isn’t relevant if it conflicts with what he wants to do. His administration has no hold on the moral high ground in criticizing SCOTUS for any of its actions comprising citizens’ rights under the Constitution.

anton says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

He is not a trained Constitutional lawyer; that myth was debunked years ago. He ran a 2-hour class now and then where any subject could be discussed, and this was transformed by his PR team into the myth: “He was a Constitutional law professor.” He was no professor, and no real teacher. He got the job because of his friendship with people-in-power at the school. He didn’t even have an office. And he clearly knows nothing about the Constitution.

We have no idea what he studied in college or law school, or how well he did, because every record from his birth forward has been sealed. All we know are the whoppers put into his fake autobiographies ghostwritten by professional writers, but for which he receives and takes gushing literary credit. (The only known example of his writing–a single college paper–is illiterate.) Virtually none of the grand stories included in his fake autobiographies are factual.

The man is a pathological liar, and a consummate huckster. He was selected, groomed, and packaged for the office by some unseen players, and his entire life history was fabricated to make him seem bigger than life. I call him Barry von Munchhausen, but that’s being too kind.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Please cite your sources. This whole statement sounds like birther/tea party propaganda to me. I am certainly no fan of the man – quite the contrary, but we’re not well served by repeating misinformation. What records do we have of Bush, Clinton, Reagan’s college years? Why has nobody been worried about it before, with other presidents?

I wouldn’t doubt that his autobiographies are ghostwritten. Please tell me who the true authors are? Perhaps the same team that’s been writing J.K. Rowling’s books since the first Harry Potter novel? So who are they, and what’s your proof?

Snopes offers a good rebuttal to the “not a professor” charge: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp. Please don’t delay in calling Snopes a CIA front or repeating some other baseless slander that’s been going around!

anton says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

He’s the first president about whom almost NOTHING is known or documented. We do have Bush’s college records; every presidential candidate before Obama was vetted; they all had or have REAL birth certificates. We don’t have Obama’s. In fact, his campaign and later his White House issued two different alleged birth certificates (one was simply a Hawaiian document of birth readily available for a fee to anybody born anywhere in the world back then; they were literally sold by the state), naming different hospitals and different doctors. None of his records have come to light; he had them officially sealed his first day on the job, so now nobody can get to them.

Jack Cashill, a specialist in literary forensics, names Bill Ayers as the author of “Dreams From My Father,” and Obama’s speech writer as the author of his second “autobiography.”


Obama was not a professor of Constitutional law by the standards of any normal university; however, I concede that the University of Chicago Law School, which formerly called him a senior lecturer, now says he was a professor of law, without the title, though he only worked part-time.

Don’t dismiss the birthers out-of-hand. They have legitimate questions that Obama could answer in one minute by unsealing his records. Instead, he doubles down on the secrecy, and ridicules skeptics. Have you noticed that he ridicules everyone who doesn’t kiss his feet or agree with him? Have we ever before had a president who spitefully ridiculed half the population to humor the other half?

There is something very wrong with him and his wife. They are not remotely normal by any stretch of the imagination. They are nasty, vindictive, and deceitful.

anton says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Gee, do you fit the pattern of an Obamabot, or what? There is nothing about my comment that is backward or biased (do you even know the meaning of “biased?” Hint, it isn’t a synonym for bigoted, which my comment also is not). I couldn’t care less about his skin color. As someone whose entire life was changed by the civil rights movement, when my father, a real professor, lost his job for defending the rights of blacks to attend his classes (contrary to the wishes of his department head), I think I know a bit more about this subject than you apparently do.

Calling Obama’s critics racists has become so predictable and trite with him and his minions that nobody listens anymore. Well, nobody other than his minions, who spend inordinate amounts of time circling the wagons and making fools of themselves defending a loathsome entity who wouldn’t lift a finger on their behalf. So worship your manufactured celebrity to your heart’s content. Someday, soon I hope, his real history will be exposed, and I feel pretty confident you won’t like what you learn. But, it really doesn’t take a genius to realize that a man who not only supports elective (i.e., non-medically necessary) abortions at nine months gestation, but also voted against a law requiring medical care for babies who survived abortion, is not a decent, kind, or generous man. He’s a sociopath.

BTW, as soon as he took office he lifted the national restriction on wolf hunting. So much for his professed support of animal rights.

anton says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I just went through your other posts, so I apologize for taking your comment seriously. Were you being facetious? It’s hard to tell from your other posts whether you are defending or attacking Obama, or both. Sometimes it helps to add “sarc off” at the end if you’re being facetious. Just a suggestion….

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

A little advice. You shouldn’t lead with the wackjob stuff about his birth certificate. Your subjective stuff about how spiteful, hateful, etc he is weak also, given that the office has been occupied by people like Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, and Reagan, real haters. The strategy of rejecting a University as not real because they don’t define things the way you do doesn’t persuade me. “Professor” isn’t a precise technical term anywhere. It’s not the same as claiming you have a PhD when you have a Masters, for example. I’ll check out your link.

anton says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I don’t think any rational person would call Ronald Reagan a hater; even those politicians who loathed him said he was amazingly kind.

Can you supply evidence of Obama displaying kindness to anyone not in front of a photographer? Can you cite a single act of charity in his entire life? The Democrats trashed Romney, who spends forty hours every week doing charitable stuff, and has done since he was in his early twenties. Obama has never done any. In fact, until he became president, he barely even donated to charities, despite a very large income.

We have his published speeches going back for years: They’re all laced with spite, ridicule, and sarcasm for everyone not on far left or on the receiving end of taxpayers’ money. But, otherwise they say nothing. He uses platitudes and slogans, not rational sentences, to mesmerize the gullible. He plays the race card at every available opportunity.

As for his birth certificate: It’s a fake. So was the previous one, and yet his campaign and his administration produced both of them, claiming they were authentic. Evidently, the fools didn’t bother comparing them. If one says he was born in hospital A the other says hospital B, and different attending physicians are listed, you automatically KNOW that at least one of the two is erroneous. But, now we know both are erroneous. And the real one is sealed up, shielded from inspection. How come? What’s he hiding?

I have no doubt the FBI, CIA, and the other alphabet federal police agencies have every sordid detail of his life in big fat files, and the fact that they have managed to keep it all secret is very suggestive. Perhaps, they are the ones who wanted him to be president in the first place? How come he gets to keep his secrets, but we, the People, don’t get to keep ours?

Matt Love (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

I’m sure that Reagan always kept up the avuncular act with the rich and powerful, he certainly had years of experience with that as the property of GE, a capacity he acted in for many years. I was thinking more about his “if it takes a bloodbath” about student activists when he was governor, telling a protester at one of his speeches to “shut up”, his smashing the air traffic controllers union (an important event in the ongoing elevation of owners and forcing workers downward), his racist and wacky stories about welfare cheats, and opposition to the MLK holiday. He and Nancy were friends with Rock Hudson, so they had no problem with rich and famous gays, but he did nothing about AIDS; if you can find any reference to Reagan even talking about AIDS, you’ve uncovered something really unusual. His love for fascism in Central America and hate for democracy and the murderous policies he pursued in the region is enough to qualify him as a hater in my book.

Now Obama is a great admirer of Reagan, and has copied his style and approach to great success. Like Reagan, and unlike Nixon, he jokes with the press, which helps to coat him with teflon like his role model. Unlike Reagan, he has tremendous discipline – I certainly believe he’s a very arrogant man, but if he’s ever publicly threatened people who oppose him with a bloodbath, or told them to “shut up,” I’d like to know about it.

I don’t watch Obama’s public appearances on TV, I don’t think there’s anything to be learned from these prefab interactions with people, but I can’t help but occasionally run across clips of him making the rounds, and he seems as at ease and for lack of a better word “friendly” as anybody else.

It just seems to me you are putting Obama in a special, separate category of political evil because of personal antipathy, not because of an objective look at recent US political history or at Obama’s character.

anton says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

So, in other words, what you’re getting at, without saying it, is that you believe Regan was more or less anti-gay (thus a “hater”), while you think Obama is a a gay-rights supporter (a “friendly” guy). Got it. Nothing more needs to be said. Invariably with his defenders, it comes down to self-interest, or maybe I should say selfish-interest. And to hell with the rest of the world.

BTW, I’m gay. His miraculously timed flip-flop on gay marriage right before the last election didn’t fool me, but it obviously fooled millions of other gays. Gay fools, all.

George Bush, Jr. did more for AIDs victims in Africa than all other presidents combined, but I never saw or heard any liberals, except for Bono, praising him for it. You see, in politics it isn’t what you do that matters; it’s that you do it in concert with whatever side is judging. Obama could slaughter and eat babies on television, and Democrats would think it was adorable. And so would several million gay fools, who think getting married to each other is more important (though most of them will never have the storybook weddings they fantasize) than tens of millions of American families facing long-term unemployment, poverty, and misery because of the destructive, self-serving policies of this administration.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I read Cashill’s article with great interest. It seems to me that a strong political bias appears in several points that may taint his analysis. He seems eager to present Bill Ayers as a Weather Underground radical; but I get fundraising emails from Ayers regularly, and it’s clear that he’s just a standard issue Democrat these days. Cashill compares Obama to Edward Said and Rigoberta Menchu, in an obvious attempt to portray Obama as some kind of leftist. A much more apt comparison would be to Kennedy and his ghostwritten Profiles In Courage; but Chashill would be loath to acknowledge that Kennedy, Reagan and Obama form a sort of triumvirate of misunderstood, and overestimated political opportunists.

Cashill makes a couple of errors that make me think he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is; from what is a simple mistake, where he refers to Obamas election as “Harvard’s first black president” to one that is a real whopper: where he says “Obama guards these more zealously than Saddam did his nuclear secrets.” Saddam had no nuclear weapons, and said so. Bush said he was lying, and invaded. The invasion created the opportunity to expose the nuclear weapons and prove Bush was a hero, but none were ever found and the world knows Saddam was telling the truth, and Bush was lying. Surely Cashill wouldn’t want to suggest that Obama is telling the the truth and he, Cashill, is lying? But that’s exactly what his clumsy metaphor suggests.

RE: Birther claims – snopes debunks the stuff you cite, and some you haven’t cited yet. I suggest you read the following to spare yourself the bother of dredging up more of this stuff.


I had thought they’d printed a copy of an Obama birth announcement in the local papers in Hawaii, I didn’t see it this time. But it’s just a short google search away: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php. This source isn’t neutral like snopes, it’s clearly partisan.

Richard_A_GA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

@anton – You’re right: I accepted without question the credential often presented by President Obama, his staff, and his campaign team that he was a “Constitutional law professor”. Based on additional research done after reading your rebuttal, as far as I can see, the actual situation is somewhere in between your position and his preferred biographical positioning. I could not find info on his academic training at Harvard, but his teaching at the University of Chicago on some aspects of Constitutional law was more that just “…a 2-hour class now and then…”. It was 12 years of teaching on 3 topics: due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law (a topic directly relevant to his anti-constitutional positions on indefinite detention without charge or trial and extrajudicial executions); voting rights and the evolution of election law; and racism and the law. At least the first two could be considered to be specific to Constitutional rights and the third could have aspects related to equal protection provisions. So, whether or not he was technically a “Constitutional law professor” as he claims and as I described, his courses were enough that he should be fully aware of the Constitutional rights that are being abridged or compromised by the positions that he has taken on FISA, NDAA, and several other wide reaching laws he has pushed. His positions have had severely affected due process and expanded the massive surveillance of the very large majority of US citizens and citizens of other countries not suspected of being engaged in illegal activities.

Whether Constitutional law professor or not, it appears from the rest of your comment that we have basically the same view of the outcome of his actions related to Constitutional rights. I focused more on the outcomes of his actions without considering his character and you focused more on your view of his character that drove the outcomes.

anton says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

No, he taught three classes each semester; literally three classes, not three full, and separate courses. This is far from any rational definition of a Constitutional law professor. He’s part of the Chicago political machine, and can get the school say whatever he wants. Look at their big financial contributors and then compare the list to his.

His public statements and actions do not comport with the Constitution or his sworn oath to protect and defend it. He is a lifelong rabble-rouser, for which his euphemism is “community organizer.” His real job during all those years was to stir up trouble, to pit one group against another, which is something obviously specializes in. He’s still doing it. Never before in my life have I witnessed a U.S. president turning one group of citizens against another, but he does so continuously.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

My argument is that Obama represents a continuation, sometimes an expansion, sometimes not, of the behavior of other recent presidents. The achievements, academic and professional of all presidents is exaggerated. Aside from Dubya, everybody assures you all these guys are genius level intellectuals (some would make that arguement for Dub). They were all huge successes in every enterprise they ever engaged in. They are all moral paragons. They assured us that Reagan was the Great Communicator even as he was first saying bizarre things, then was silenced, by dementia. Obama’s status as a constitutional law professor is more firmly grounded in reality than a lot of nonsense people say about US presidents. You are correct to focus on his actual current behavior. Some of his attacks on the Constitution are unprecedented. Some aren’t. I think current trends started under Truman, and accelerated under Reagan, Obama represents an exacerbated continuation of an ignoble trend.

phlypp (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Uh, Wally. The laws and systems that Edward Snowden exposed were initiated by the previous Administration and Republican Congressmen have universally denounced Snowden as a traitor and spy. In other words, this article doesn’t demonstrate any Obama corruption but does show your hatred for the President simply because you hate the President. Is it the NSA spying that has you riled up or the fact that Snowden is a whistle blower that’s being treated as a traitor?

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“In other words, this article doesn’t demonstrate any Obama corruption but does show your hatred for the President simply because you hate the President. Is it the NSA spying that has you riled up or the fact that Snowden is a whistle blower that’s being treated as a traitor?”

No to your inquiring sentence and yes to your question.

I hate Obama because he did nothing to lobby to put a stop on the 2008 FISA Amendments. He vowed to do that in his 2008 Campaign yet here we are today. The 2008 amendment only gave the NSA the extended power to collect the metadata of US Citizens who called into the US from foreign soil…the 2010 Amendment added all incoming and outgoing calls and pretty much everyone.

Now no matter who you think started it. This current administration EXTENDED THE POWERS OF THE NSA when Obama said he would put an end to it during both his 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Uh

Uh, phlypp, so Kerry and Holder are Republicans? Bush called Snowden a traitor, and called on European banana republics to divert Morales’ plane, and threatened sanctions (and possibly invasion) against any country that would give him sanctuary?

Anhd now its hate to accurately criticize Obama for things he did?

Uh uh, indeed. No sir, I don’t like it.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hoover and Obama

I disagree that Hoover was responsible for the Great Depression. Hoover inherited a festering problem created by the fiscal policies of the Coolidge administration. Hoover, widely regarded as the most capable man in the country, failed to correct them for many of the same reasons Obama failed to correct the problems he inherited. I found this article very persuasive and prescient in that Obama is another Hoover, but not in the way everybody thinks; written just 3 months after Obama took office, he maps the next few years with depressing accuracy: http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/barack-hoover-obama/.

However, the author didn’t predict that Obama would turn into Nixon. As little expectation I had from Obama, I thought he would be another Carter, but it’s clear that Nixon is the antecedent.

steve baker says:

Re: Re: Re:

You obviously don’t personally remember Nixon, do you?

His entire administration’s transgressions couldn’t hold a candle to one week of Obama’s dismantling of our Constitutional freedoms and protections.

And he loved our Country enough to resign rather than subject it to crisis.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I too remember Nixon. The problem with Nixon is they went after him for the wrong crime – Watergate. It was two bit stuff, and it was largely politically motivated. They should have gone after him for the secret bombing of Cambodia – monstrous war crimes. I guess Americans didn’t give a shit about Cambodians, any more than they care about Iraqis. At least, the politicians sure didn’t/don’t. I’ve read that part of Obama’s “legal” justification for his much smaller, but still grotesque, drone assassination program was Nixon’s bombing campaign. Now, if I kill somebody thinking I’ll get away with it, because other murders have gone unpunished, I won’t get very far with that logic. But in the executive branch, unpunished crimes are indeed precedent for allowing further crimes. Obama stands on the shoulders of giants. The kind portrayed in Jack and the Bean Stalk. And the idea that Nixon up because he cared about the nation is absurd. He did it to save his own neck, after exploring every other option, including imposition of martial law. The reason that subsequent criminals like Clinton, Bush, and Obama would never consider resigning is the precedent of Reagan surviving the feeble, inept, and perhaps deliberately failed attempts at accountability.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Nixon's been bested

How do you know this? Do you have a crystal ball? It’s more useful to stick with the facts.

Nixon would have gone as far as he thought necessary to maintain power, including martial law. I suppose Obama would too, but we have different circumstances that make direct comparisons difficult. For example, we have a more passive population. Would people have been gunned down instead of beaten up when Obama closed down Occupy camps if Nixon had been in office? And if Obama explores imposing Martial Law, would his advisers advise against it, or say, “Yes, we can!” It hasn’t come up because the great majority of the herders and the sheep are on the same page. If we get serious opposition, we’ll be in a better position to know.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

First you make an absolute statement that remove any politician from the category of promise keepers. Then you say there are “a few” exceptions. Which is it, none, or a few? How many is a few, and how do you know? I agree that it’s a good default to assume that politicians are liars, and proceeding on that basis until I learn otherwise. But that doesn’t mean they all are. I have no idea how many are, and ready to have my mind changed based on evidence. It’s the difference between skepticism and cynicism.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Maybe I should have used almost instead of no. Still, it’s true. I’m following a few politicians here in my country (because unfortunately I can’t follow them all) and I’ve seen some of them I thought to be the exceptions being actually more of the same and others I bet without much faith to be exactly what I define as an exception. I’m by no means a cynic. I do believe there are good people out there.

What I do doubt is how effective those people can be given how rotten politics are nowadays.

earl mcbakersfield says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yes. I’ve seen people on Facebook speculating that Obama will try to stay in more than 2 terms. They fail to understand that this is unnecessary for this power system to remain functioning. In fact it would do the opposite, it would throw back the curtains on the facade of the democratic republic. It’s much harder to understand the tyranny you are under when you have the belief that you can elect it out.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Americas terrorist state

As a state that creates terror, the US has no peer. We don’t need to set off car bombs in markets because we can create so much more terror by dropping bombs from planes. Why limit ourselves to small, localized terror incidents when we can make really really massive ones? This does not make us a dictatorship, however. Most Americans don’t oppose our status as the world’s greatest terror state – most either don’t know it, or they approve of it. There are very few consequences for most people who oppose government policies. As long as we stay inside the roped off free speech zones, and don’t break laws, their monitoring of us was so discreet as to be unnoticed, until Snowden. So I wouldn’t call it a dictatorship. Some kinda nasty, but not a dictatorship.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Americas terrorist state

incoherent…. comment… too…. many…. ellipses… to be sure…. what you are… trying to…. say…. If you are trying to say these are all inside jobs, I have nothing to say to you, you are beyond reach. If you are trying to say that the World Trade Center Pentagon attacks, etc are worse than what we’ve done to the rest of the world – consider the US terror attack on Iraq alone.

Mann D. Lifeboats says:

Re: Re:

“Dictatorship that is driven by corporate greed”?

Oh, please. Please find some creativity and replace that tiresome flat remark.

While Obama’s tyranny is being funded by Democrat-liberal-leftist collaborators in corporate America, it required the votes from the intellectually and morally vacant, cowardly and divisive millions — including the meanstream media — to help install him.

Were the Fourth estate to have any integrity and character, Obama would never have been elected.

Bergman (profile) says:

Funny how fast the whistleblowers that need to be protected when you’re not in office become the enemies of the state after you are elected…

There’s two ways to have a completely untarnished reputation:

Either make everyone so scared to talk they won’t say a single bad word about you…

Or do the right thing.

It always amazes me how many people can’t figure that one out.

umnonotso says:

Re: Re:

Simply saying “do the right thing” is, aside from being an over simplification (and also dependent on individual perception), in no way armor against a tarnished reputation.

Plenty of people “do the right thing” and are still admonished or castigated for their efforts.

The sad truth is that no matter what a person does these days, there will be a group of people who come forward to accuse them of some kind of impropriety.

Anonymous Coward says:

the statement had to be removed so no one would remember what Obama said on the run up to election. as it has been removed now, no one will remember him as being no different a liar to the one before him! as for Snowden, i just read where the USA has promised Russia that he wont be put to death for blowing the whistle on the NSA and other security forces and their spying on everyone everywhere!! he would be kept in solitary confinement, treated in as inhuman a way as possible for life plus 70 years, just like copyright protection, then reviewed when his time was almost up, to get another 30 years tagged on! sound ridiculous? so it should but i wouldn’t mind betting they would try to do that!!

WG (profile) says:

The veil has been lifted

Now we see just how corrupt and evil this administration is. Seriously, the people need to recall every ass-licking politician they voted for. We need to clean house of the cockroaches. I noted that when Obama was running for his first term, there was something evil about him; something didn’t feel right. I’ve never felt that way about ANY previous politician, black or otherwise; and that feeling just got worse.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: The veil has been lifted

I’ve never felt that way about ANY previous politician, black or otherwise; and that feeling just got worse.

Then you should get your spidey-sense adjusted, as it should have also been triggered by Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr. (I could keep going, but I don’t know how old you are.)

BTW, why did you bring up race? That seems an awfully random thing to slip in.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The veil has been lifted

That’s a terrible tactic, then. Including that comment signals pretty loudly that it is, in fact, because he’s black. Much like how bigots often preface bigoted sentiments with “I’m not a bigot, but…”

(Just to be clear, I’m not saying that WG is racist, just that the language raises a red flag.)

WG (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The veil has been lifted

Listen, everyone, I AM NOT A RACIST – OF ANY COLOR! However, I am a white, 60-year-old man, who grew up in a heavily-populated black community, and my best and first friend was black. I truly hate racism for racism’s sake – but I have no problem calling someone an asshole when I encounter it, regardless of what color they are. I have many black (and Mexican) friends who know me and would tell you to go shove a cactus up your ass for suggesting that. I have individuals who are members of my family that just so happen to be black; many of my closest friends are black, red, and brown.

I’ve seen many, many politicians come and go, of all colors, that have never made me feel this way. There is something wrong here with Obama and his cronies that goes way beyond your instantaneous racial shrill. Get over yourselves.

anton says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The veil has been lifted

The first time I saw Obama giving a campaign speech, I got cold chills. I thought, “This guy is evil,” and I was right. The first time I saw Bush Jr. speaking, I thought, “This guy is stupid,” and I was right about that, too.

There is something profoundly creepy about Obama and his adoring sycophants. He’s an absolute fraud, a PR invention marketed like a boy band, who pretends to be knowledgeable about many things, but seems, in fact, to know nothing about any of them. His tent revival preacher act is appalling. This political Elmer Gantry should have been thrown out of office on Day One.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The veil has been lifted

I on the other hand, think he actually believed what he said in his first campaign except something along the way actually turned him. I’m curious what exactly it was and at what point it actually occurred. Personally, I think it was likely those behind the corruption machine convinced him that he had better listen to them or else they would destroy him. At least that’s my theory.

not what it seems says:

Re: The veil has been lifted

i wouldnt say obama is entirely at fault. The people who were in the whitehouse during GWB and are still in the whitehouse now are the ones at fault. The ones that are manipulating him. He wasnt like this when he started. What happened to his vigor and determination? You can see it slowly dying away over the years. Presidents are just the face which we point the blame. Its like school principals having to listen to the PTA

stonehillady says:

Re: The veil has been lifted

I don’t think we have the time for anymore elections, the Powers that be are well aware that many of the sheep have awoken. Things are going to happen pretty fast & we are all doomed for an October surprise. It has all been planned, I think the NWO will start with the demise of the dollar, then Martial Law in Oct. So be prepaid and I dread what will happen to those who live in heavily populated areas first, like major cities & their suburbs. Heaven help us all.

Tim Edwards (profile) says:

Info still on whitehouse.gov


Quick search for whistle blowers on whitehouse.gov found this PDF.

Not that anything our gov puts out in public means anything anyway, it’s all just to keep the majority of the population happy enough that they dont notice the downward spiral they are caught up in.

Bob says:


It’s not actually gone http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/ppd-19.pdf the PDF outlining the protection of whistleblowers is still there, if you search “whistleblowers” on the whitehouse.gov site it’s the first result. Don’t get me wrong I’m not standing up for them just saying don’t jump to conclusions of conspiracy without at least doing some digging.

Zack says:

Change.gov website content deletion

Obama has not only retained the Patriot Act, but strengthened it. He railed against it during his election campaign. Can’t close down Gitmo. Now, with the Ed Snowden situation, Obama obviously is implicitly acknowledging that Snowden may be a proper whistleblower, but now he wants to try the fellow for treason.

stonehillady says:

Re: Change.gov website content deletion

Notice that Obama & Congress want to try Snowden for Treason ? Treason means abating the enemy. Snowden wanted to inform the American People what our government was doing to us, he didn’t reveal anything but the programs themselves.
So what does Obama & Congress think is Treason ? The enemy is the American public then. Wake up folks we are the governments enemy, that is why Homeland Security purchased 2 billion rounds of UN illegal hollow point bullets.

American Natural-Born Citizen (user link) says:

Rand Paul 2016 - Uphold the United States Constitution

Rand Paul: Conservative Libertarian Constitutionalist

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.

One of the most salient features of constitutionalism is that it describes and prescribes both the source and the limits of government power. William H. Hamilton has captured this dual aspect by noting that constitutionalism “is the name given to the trust which men repose in the power of words engrossed on parchment to keep a government in order.”


Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well, calling Manning a whistleblower is quite a stretch. It wasn’t like he found some specific wrong and put it out there, he just released everything — good, bad, neutral. And a lot of things that probably shouldn’t be leaked.

Also not true. He sent it to Wikileaks, who worked with a variety of news organizations (including The Guardian, the NY Times, Der Spiegel and others) to comb through and release only key documents with redactions.

So, no.

Ana Campos says:

This article is incorrect.

I suggest the writer of this article cite his sources or correct his mistake. Change.org was not set up by the Obama transition team. That’s the most ridiculous accusation so far and that’s defamation.

I was there when Change.org launched, involved in the top 10 ideas for change in america campaign and personally spoke with the founders. This article is wrong.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: This article is incorrect.

The website is still Barak Obama’s political mouthpiece. Step off the defamation accusation you politico mouth-piece of crap because it was not a statement meant to willfully harm the website.

Furthermore…the article is quite accurate about the owners of that website completely going by and believing in Obama’s statement and thus changing the website content itself to hide Obama’s earlier protests and agenda to end unwarranted spying. You think that this nation is that stupid?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: This article is incorrect.

This article is incorrect.


I suggest the writer of this article cite his sources or correct his mistake.

Did you even read the article? The source is cited and linked to IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE.

Change.org was not set up by the Obama transition team.

Well there’s your problem. This story is not about change.org, but change.gov.

That’s the most ridiculous accusation so far and that’s defamation.

Oh really now? Do tell me your theory on defamation law…

I was there when Change.org launched, involved in the top 10 ideas for change in america campaign and personally spoke with the founders. This article is wrong.

According to your (wrong) theory of “defamation” making an incorrect statement is defamation. You’ve made a series of incorrect statements in your comment, including claiming that this is about change.org, instead of change.gov, and that I didn’t cite my sources. Curious: are you guilty of defamation?

Adamcain (profile) says:

"We protect Whistleblowers" said Putin.

We do not torture…Waterboarding is really a sport they enjoy at Gitmo.

K.G.B. Former Boss – 1 vs.
Community Organizer – 0.

Translation: “You remember when you said that you would have more leeway after your re-election, Comrade Barack ….. ” Reset – Reset….where is the Reset button when you need it…..L.O.L!

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Change.Gov

The Change.Gov site has not existed for years. It was the initial transition site. Try checking for it. I just did and it sent me to WhiteHouse.Gov. Why do people make things like this up?

Couldn’t even read the very first paragraph of the actual post, could you? I mean, really, it’s only explained in the second sentence… Yes, the FRONT PAGE redirects, but all the other content had remained. Until just recently.

Angry Voter says:


So was Obama an agent for the shadow government before he was elected or did they just blackmail him into it after he was elected?

It’s hard to tell with the neo-Hoover NSA blackmail machine in place.

For those who missed it – people were institutionalized, forcibly medicated and even lobotomized for claiming Hoover was using the FBI to blackmail people. Decades later it turned out to be true. We had a filthy fascist running our national police.

How about the UK? The head of their spy agency (Kim Philby) turned out to be an agent of the USSR and the people he ‘caught’ were people who might expose him.

Empire Slayer (user link) says:

Obama Trying to Prevent Likely Whistle Blowers

We also have to remember, and it should have been mentioned in this article, that Obama is literally trying to institute new procedures that would make it less likely that a potential whistle blower could be hired by the government, and more ways for government employees to rat out coworkers they think might be whistle blowers!

Obama is doing the exact opposite of what he promised, and it is so laughably, embarrassingly blatant that he had to slink in with his head down and remove the promise from his website. That’s so funny it would be awesome if not so sad for the country.

KUMA-NIN says:

Not true, says the WhiteHouse.gov site!

If those who chose to attack the President with claims they cannot back up did their homework, they would find the following fact: Change.gov gives you the link to WhiteHouse.gov.

Now you type in “whistle blower” in that site’s search, you get the following links: http://search.whitehouse.gov/search?affiliate=wh&query=whistle+blower&submit.x=-330&submit.y=-484&submit=Search&form_id=usasearch_box

The first three are tied to this, and note that the law is still in effect. However, Snowden is a different case. The law is to protect those who are willing to cooperate with the Government. Snowden decided to expose information and flee, which makes him a very dangerous subject — He could choose to cooperate with any enemies or give the info away if captured. Either way, he exposes every American to something that even they cannot protect themselves from… As in cyber terrorism that could lead to actual terrorism.

Think about that.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Not true, says the WhiteHouse.gov site!

“He could choose to cooperate with any enemies or give the info away if captured.”

Really? So why is it that to this day, he remains in that Russian airport, and neither Russia or China wanted anything to do with him.
Forget Snowden. He’s not important. What he revealed is, the massive over-reach of the NSA spying programs. That is terrorism plain and simple.

Blame it on Bush just don't cut it anymore says:

You voted for Clinton and Obama twice now pwn it

Rich the occupy anarchist and hippie rad lib crowd bitched about Reagan, and 2 Bushs spying, wars, and police state but said nothing when Clinton continued bombing Iraq, Serbia/Bosnia, ran Operation Urban Warrior Martial Law drills, and passed POS leg like DMCA. But You voted for him twice.

Obama doubled down on the Bankster Wall St Bailout, diverted Big Oil no bid contracts to Big Green/Cronies of his own no bid contracts, Continued 2 Bush wars, and started others in the Middle east, Passed a Gaggle of Secret Arrest, Indefinite Detention, Torture and even Assassination of Americans laws and Exec Orders. But you voted for him twice and even thrice.

Time for the designer doped geeks in Silicon Valley to get a taste of their own medicine. You are all spied on, tracked, followed, and recorded, not by evil right wingers, but your own lefto-facist Demorat Party. Remember that when you put the noose over your neck and pull the lever for all the “D”s on the ballot next year and in ’16.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: You voted for Clinton and Obama twice now pwn it

Whoa, hard to see reality through all the strawmen you throw up. All sorts of people are concerned about the criminal behavior or Reagan and the Bushes, not just “occupy anarchists and hippie rad lib crowd.” Anarchists and radicals have no love for Clinton or Obama, either. It’s true that neoliberals and reflexive democrats overlook Clinton and Obama for committing the same crimes as Reagan and the Bushes – but the inverse is true for Republicans. It’s a terrible problem that most Americans think politics are sports, and are more concerned about being on the winning team than with integrity and justice – but you think the problems lie in one part of the small percentage of Americans that don’t do this. Just like the idiots that think Nader is “worse than Hitler” for daring to run a campaign to the left of the chosen one.

Charles Wegrzyn (profile) says:

Dems and Republicans Can't Be Trusted

I’ve be an lifelong supporter of Democrats and Independents since I started to vote in 1972. But with all the revelations I’m beginning to think I’ll switch to Libertarian.

While I don’t believe no government is the right approach we need a government we can count on. That means a government where the first order is to obey the Constitution. It is pretty funny that Obama seems to be splitting hairs to support his positions something that makes me very sceptical of him and the both parties. Everything is a nuanced interpretation!!!

Does anyone remember the most popular phrase during ’72 election:

“Vote for Nixon in 72, why change Dicks in the middle of a screw!”

We need something like this today because that is what is happening on a bigger and grander scale by both parties and the Whitehouse.

Ronald L. Gibbs says:

What what Obama Does

Over the past 5 years of the reign of Barack Hussein Obama I have recognized from his early days in office that the American People should not pay as much attention to what he says but should watch extremely closely at what he does. If you spend enough time listening to his lofty, but hollow rhetoric, you will then find he actually does something totally different. For me that made a clear statement that Barack Hussein Obama is not to be trusted. Early on I began to not truste him and now I don’t trust him at all. Trust is not a right, it is something that is earned. Barack Hussein Obama has not earned the Trust of the American People.

horse with no name says:

Re: What what Obama Does

As soon as you use “hussein” you give yourself away as a card carrying Republican, rifle toting twit. You feel that you have to in some odd way suggest his is not as American as your red white and blue ass. Very stupid, really.

Politics is a sad game to play, because you never get everything you hope for. Politicians aim high on the campaign trail where they are not encumbered by reality or the need to compromise. Then they get elected, and have to deal with 600 or so other elected people who stood on the campaign trail and pushed for exactly the opposite things.

Obama is not better and no worse that those who went before him (Remember “mission accomplished” with Shrub Bush? Explain to the thousands of families who lost loves ones in Iraq after the mission was “accomplished” how it feels). Clinton got a hummer and played dip the cigar, Bush Sr said “no new taxes” and Reagan said it was morning in America, and used voodoo economics to steal our future – which the world is still paying for today. Carter was harmless, Ford was funny, Nixon was a crook… how far would you like to go back?

Political reality and campaign rhetoric never match up.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re: What what Obama Does

I partially agree with you. Carter was far from harmless to the people of Nicaragua, and the people of East Timor, for a start. Just about any US president could, and should, be prosecuted for war crimes by the standards that are applied to African despots – they get a pass because the power structure of the empire closes around them, so that each in his turn gets to be as criminal as he wants to be. In some ways Obama is no worse than those that came before, but in some ways he is worse. He claims the right, openly to target and kill anybody he wishes (including Americans) any time he wants, for any reason or no reason at all, with no restraint and no oversight. Assassination is a tool that’s been available to the US presidency for some time – but it’s an indication of the decay of our republic that our godfather can (and does) openly brag about his crimes.

Wahoo says:

Our government is much like professional wrestling. You can cheer for either side, and sometimes your guy may win, but regardless, there’s a man behind all the curtains calling the shots and determining the outcomes of the wins (I.E. whIch legislation passes and fails). They also occasionally throw in a side show of shenanigans and dramatic interviews. (I.E. Paula Deen, Zimmerman, Royal baby, or speeches from Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McConnel, etc). I hate your team, you hate my team, but they’re all cashing checks from the same political contributors. They profit, we get lost in our hate for the policies and the teams and the players, then we pay the price for their actions.

Wake up.

Carl says:

Beware the 2nd Term

Aside from wars, DHS/TSA (police state), spying on citizens and kowtowing to special interests the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration shared the trait of being even bigger deceitful dicks towards the American people after entering their second term.

They have nothing to gain in keeping up the micron thin facade that they give a damn.

Protonius (profile) says:

Why not petition the White House to adhere to Obama's 2009 "Ethics Agenda"?

Here’s an idea that, IMO, could catch-on like wildfire. Any opinions on it?:

Why not take Obama’s (now-disappeared) 2008-election-plus “Ethics Agenda” — specifically, the “Whistleblower Protections” portion as quoted in the TECHDIRT article above — and post it, with an introduction, as a PETITION on the White House’s own “We the People” petition-site?

For example, perhaps the petition could say:

“Whereas, We, the People of this great nation, being justly proud of our freedoms-based heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those freedoms and human rights to which this nation has traditionally (until now) been committed, HEREBY PETITION the United States Government — and particularly the current Administration in the White House, and the person currently sitting as President of this nation — to now FULLY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION (and without intention to deceive, inveigle, or obfuscate) ADHERE TO A PARTICULAR SET OF ETHICS-BASED PRINCIPLES THAT HE AND HIS ADMINISTRATION PREVIOUSLY PROMINENTLY ESPOUSED — principles that have now apparently been “disappeared” from the Obama-related “Change.Gov” website — as to the positive importance of and positive need to support the rights of persons who, by dint of their own courage and often at risk to their own futures, seek to expose malfeasance and corruption in our nation’s Government: “WHISTLEBLOWERS”. Those principles, as previously (but apparently not quite currently) espoused by the person who now sits in the Presidency, had reportedly been stated on the “Change.Gov” website as follows:

“Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.”

So says:

Do The Hustle

No problem…
The Blamer-in-Chief (and/or his gullible minions as witnessed on this site) will simply label this story as yet another “phony scandal”.
His palace guard press will dutifully report same a fact.
And we can all keep pretending that somehow even the slightest perceived flaw of this Admin is actually rooted in our own shortcomings predicated by or inability to digest Obama’s towering intellectual prowess.
Stay tuned for Act III – ‘It Takes a Woman to Save a Village’ starring Hillary Clinton
Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Lies Goes On….

seanboud says:


Manning is subject to the UCMJ and not civilian law since he in in uniform and a member of the armed services. You are bound by oath and a different set of rules apply to you as a result. The same goes with your treatment in a brig or stockade. It’s not civilian law enforcement. It’s the military. It’s harsh.

Learn the facts. He put his brothers and sisters in danger during a time of war. He should be put against a wall, stripped of all rank and insignia and shot for treason.

Snowden is an entirely different matter, as is Assange since neither was in the military and one isn’t even an American citizen.

TheSwordNPen says:

Re: Manning

Manning those who never served don’t understand what the military is! Its a Military Command with Chain of Command, its a dictator style outfit that serves to protect US citizens rights&freedoms! We who serve give up those rights when we enlist! We do it with pride & love of our Country! Also we knowingly do so knowing the Code of Military Justice! We military don’t expect the ordinary US citizen to understand this! You leak military secrets you will pay the price! Plus this guy put his fellow soldiers in harms way! Also most US citizens don’t realize he had the option of a Special Court Marital which makes it closer to civilian US courts! He opted for a Judge to give the verdict rather than a jury which is what he would of had if he asked for it! He obviously feels he has a better chance with a Judge!

Anonymous Coward says:

prepare oneself for social justice

Whistle blowing and revealing scandals only needs to apply to and take place under a republican administration. Democrat administrations are made of wise leaders who do what is only in our very best interest without any self interest involvement whatsoever. Those who oppose these wise leaders need to be tracked, hacked, and thrown in jail for having thoughts that are not in line with those who only act in the best interest of the poor and downtrodden. Anyone who dares to report these imprisonments should face a similar persecution. America is not about people having free will to act in one’s self interest, it is about bringing social justice to anyone whose personal or ancestral actions have ever infringed on anyone else. It is about reversing decades of colonialism and it is about taking from the producers and giving to the takers who have not had the opportunities to succeed themselves.

So look around and realize that everything is going to change and if you make a dime more than anyone else on the planet you better be prepared to have it taken away from you….in fairness.

***note this does not apply to the leaders bringing about the social justice after all, they deserve more in return for their selflessness.

Adam Abramowitz says:

Obama is the WORST PRESIDENT of all time. At least Reagan, Nixon, and the two Bushes didn’t screw over their entire party, causing a momentous shift to the right (or, in their cases, to the left). The Democrats aren’t acting like Democrats. The ONLY politicians that I trust on the National stage are Mr. Sanders, and Ms. Warren.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Re:

After Bush Sr. (mostly as a result of Reagan policies) and Bush Jr, the situation was created where Democrats swept into office with such force that people were pondering the end of the Republican Party, or predicting they’d be out of power for a century. The fact the the Dems screwed up things so badly people embraced the Republicans again only shows that the differences between the two parties are like differences between Coke and Pepsi – superficial. For a large percentage of the population they are interchangeable. It would be a mistake to use the metaphor of mirror, because they are more alike than opposite. Gore Vidal pointed that out very well, on many occasions; here is one nice example: “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ? and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Color of his skin makes a difference !!!

it’s amusing how you Americans express your racism, sure Bush was a monster, put the planet into a massive financial crisis, authorised special renditions, went to war without congress approval..

But OBAMA IS BLACK !!!!!..

The first Black President, so he just has to be the worst.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Color of his skin makes a difference !!!

You want to talk racism? How about those who voted for Obama simply because he’s black? Isn’t that just as racist as voting against him simply because he’s black?
Whatever the case, America wanted the novelty of having its first black president. Well, the novelty wore off long ago, and now we all have to live with the consequences.

Ray says:

The invisible hand

Blackmail not bribes are the currency of the realm in politics. This is why the NSA issue is so important. It strikes at the very leash the invisible hand uses to walk our political guard dogs keeping us all prisoner.

I wish someone would create a website that joins groups on issues we all agree on. They use divide and conquer to keep us divided into two half wits right / left. The little things we don’t agree on are chump change compared to what we do.

Let’s say Obama’s birth certificate can be used to throw him out of office anytime he tries to defend our shrinking rights? That is why that mattered. Politicians are nearly all blackmailed and the NSA is an important part of that control structure. Without privacy, there can be no freedom.

Chris says:

Illegal and unconstitutional administration

Never before has the US ever seen a more corrupt, unconstitutional, and illegal administration in control of its country. A 2 year investigation on Obummer’s birth certificate has wrapped and getting ready to go public – it was falsified! Obummer gas not kept a single campaign promise (not even the ACA – as it has now been projected to not be affordable). The massive jump in the deficit, the surge in the erosion of individual rights with the NDAA and patriot act (to name a few) is a sign to what is to come if things are not corrected quickly…..

Reclaim_Nation (profile) says:

Military Takeover of the Government

The US Military (NSA) has required all Internet connected electronic device makers (Samsung, HTC, Apple, Google, Microsoft, GM, Chrysler, Ford, etc) to embed backdoor access in all software & hardware in those products to allow them (NSA) to monitor us instantly and easily (PC’s, smartphones, OnStar System, tablets, xBox, Skype, Office 365, Skype, DropBox, laptops, PC’s, cars, trucks, etc). Using this back door access the NSA now has the capability to store everything and anything about each of us (device audio, video, keyword searches, email content, web sites visited, contacts, GPS locations, etc) . They have your voice-print, and face image (for facial recognition). They (the NSA) have admitted they can turn on any of your devices at any time and use the microphones and/or cameras and convert all your conversations to text and store it forever.

Police already abuse the immense power they have, but when everyone?s actions are being monitored, and everyone technically violates some obscure law at some time, then punishment becomes purely selective. Those in power will essentially have what they need to punish anyone they?d like, whenever they choose, as if there were no rules at all.

Google, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc got so many requests from the NSA for your data that they built an automated system to handle these warrantless requests for your private info.

This trend towards automation (which includes things like high res license plate scanners and domestically deployed drones) now represents a significant shift in the way that law enforcement operates. Selective detection, arrest, and punishment becomes automated.

Matt Love (profile) says:

Re: Myth Debunked (It's just been moved, people)

This is obviously not the same document. The one you link to is dated October 10, 2012, and there is none of this language in it: “Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out.” It would be interesting to compare the two documents to see what they have in common, and what they have changed, and what either of them have to do with hounding a whistleblower (and any nation that offers him sanctuary) across the entire planet.

Anonymous Coward says:

I’m not American, so I don’t know the laws… but if the election promise was:
“Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.”

Looking at current events, why hasn’t there been a move to impeach Obama… at this point isn’t it clear that he lied.

Geoffrey Akinya says:

obama hypocrisy

Unfortunately Obama is not being a hypocrite. He can only be a hypocrite if he acted to support whistleblowers and then turned around later to condemn and intimidate whistleblowers. In fact Obama has not done such a thing. what he has done is condemn and intimidate whistleblowers ONLY. Just because he had a few concept speeches doesn’t mean a thing. Watch what he does – not what he says. Obama is merely the tool of the great American tradition that every American aspires to – an imperialist ‘democrat’ consisted since 1965! Thank you america for making the world a truly better place in your own way!


It’s back on the page FYI: http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

“Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.”

ivanhardware (user link) says:


Unfortunately Obama is not being a hypocrite. He can only be a hypocrite if he acted to support whistleblowers and then turned around later to condemn and intimidate whistleblowers. In fact Obama has not done such a thing. what he has done is condemn and intimidate whistleblowers ONLY. Just because he had a few concept speeches doesn’t mean a thing. Watch what he does – not what he says. Obama is merely the tool of the great American tradition that every American aspires to – an imperialist ‘democrat’ consisted since 1965! Thank you america for making the world a truly better place in your own way!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Β»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...