ken ware: Actually, the NSA has been spying on us for decades and it sure didn't stop 9/11 nor did it stop the Boston bombings 10 years after 9/11. And the NSA was spying on all American citizens in the decade after 9/11 even harder than just before 9/11. The spying on American citizens has very little to do with trying to protect us against terrorism. It has a lot more to do with keeping American citizens from rebelling against the entrenched ruling elite.

mrbrannon68 - I am not sure if the 4th. Amendment you are citing stops the government from search without a warrant in this situation The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Senator Feinstein (D. CA), Chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee seems to feel very strongly that what the NSA is doing is key to keeping us free from another 911. You state you are not willing to surrender your liberties or civil rights for security. I am not sure if you are legally surrendering your civil rights in this instance according to the 4th. Amend., apparently you do. And, because I am not sure about that point and whether or not this is a fundamental right that supersedes keeping me and my family safe from all types of attacks, I simply am not ready to shut down the NSA eye in the sky that is ripping this information from the skies with the ever knew technology we have at our disposal to help keep a radioactive, biological or just a woman or child strapped with explosives from blowing the hell out of everyone in the local mall. Because we have no evidence on hand that we have actually stopped an attack, we may have disrupted we are not aware of. So far I have not seen any Court rulings stating what the NSA is doing is illegal. And, because I am not sure at this point, what right you may have or may not have under the 4th. Amend. to deprive me and my loved ones from any means that may inhibit or stop an attack on any level against us. The military does not have to go to war in order to inhibit another country from attacking us; the very presence of their ability has stopped many nations from attacking on us on any level without the eminent and direct threat of retaliation from us. I realize the powers that be at some point could use this technology against us as citizens, but the government can also use the military or any other technology against us to usurp our civil rights. To many Mr. Snowden is a hero, I am not convinced of that at this point and neither am I convinced that the NAS intelligence gather is illegal, especially if new controls can be set forth to govern their action. This information is not being stored anywhere, it is being dumped every 48 hours in order to scan new information for threats. The technology being used does not just recognize specific words or phrases, it recognizes type of speech and dialect as well, regions of origin, etc. Yes, I realize how it sounds somewhat strange for me to be standing up for the President and the Intelligence Committee and NSA, based on previous comments. But with the multitude of threats facing us in this new era and the volume of hate that is voiced daily against America and not just the Government, but also the American people, I am not willing to throw this technology of information gathering away without further study on my part and the watch dog committees whose job it is to protect our civil rights. I read what Hartmann had to say and the quotes from the oversight committee. His job is too sensationalize everything he reads, that is what keeps him on the air. He is on the far left with the likes of MSNBC and FOX is on the far right. I am leary when reading anything either side says. I appreciate the idea that you feel your civil rights are being stepped on and you have all the right in the nation to feel this way and take whatever action you feel necessary. But, for me I will wait and watch to make my stand. If you want to exchange non useful slander bank and forth about my choices, save you breathe, I no longer engage in that game. I have learned from my past mistakes. K.W. Please excuse the length of this comment and any spelling or grammar typo's.

chuckle8: I'm not sure what you want from me.....I'm more than well aware of the out of control spending by Republicans, as well as the tax cuts for the rich problem. Why isn't more being said about the countless revenue being lost over time as a result of massive tax cuts for those who didn't need them?

As for that missing money you aren't worried about...let me just comment this way..... What if it's in the hands of some very dangerous people? ....18 billion!

Birth Certificate, Social Security Numbers, Federal Reserve RSSIDs, regarding interest inherited at birth. I think my privacy was invaded as early as 1953 by bankers, based on a Deed executed in another state in 1943, with many government securities pertaining.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/leighmf/blog/2014/01/maria-christianas-proof-1

Mark S -- A plot of productivity vs median wage (see Aftershock by Reich) gives more creditibility to Thom's hypothesis than yours. Also, for whatever reason our care free economy took a hit (reduction in rate of increase of the GDP) with the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts.

It's all about status and class insecurity fomented by the Republican PR machine in the Maoist styled (but right wing) Cultural Revolution that was meant to undo the Depression Era egalitarian ethos of the Great Depression and the '60s that supported the New Deal and the Democrats. They're not voting their wallets but their great status insecurity, and thus, their status symbol climbing causes them to hate egalitarianism.

All wars are resource wars. We know from reading our Marx and Engels that economic concaetcerens are the "prime movers" in politics and everything else., The policies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Obama are in response to the Mid Eastern countriesa nationalizing their oil industries, and so, ending the imperial, colonial hedgemony over them of the United States and Western Europe.

A good a story was published in Mother Jones in 2002 in the run up to the invasion of Iraq written by the former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia of the Nixon Administration of that period describing how it was already the newly adopted policy then that the Western Powers should take the Mid East oil back by force. That action by the nationalist mid eastern governments is what really ended our care free economy of the '50s and '60s, not Ronald Reagan like Thom says (Thom acknowledges that U.S. wealth peaked in 1973, the year of the O.P.,E.C. Oil Embargo). Reagan was only reacting to it. We didn't have recessions before that like we do and did since.

All oppositions, insurgencies, revolutionary movements and reform candidates "jump the fence" when they get in. The simple fact is their vested interests change when they become "the powers that be". When you're the insurgency or opposition you abhor political repression and censorship of the press, then, when your insurgency or opposition succeeds and you become the ruling party or governing administration, when you go "from the streets to the suites", it then suddenly seems a very good idea to repress the opposition and censor the media. That's why Occupy was independent of party loyalty and leaderless.

But every politician's - and especially every president's - greatest nightmare, in these times, is for more 9/11s happening on their watch. As long as they think they'll catch more flack for not spying on Americans than for doing it they'll do it.

Same with drone strikes. Getting the word out about drone strikes got the support for them from the Amercan public down from 80% to 60%. But until the American people make plain to Obama, or any other president, that they want drone strikes to stop even if that means Al Quaeda has a safe haven in Pakistan they will continue.

We have to think about not convincing Obama but of convincing the American people who Noam Chomsky calls "the most powerful political force in the world". That means a lot of hard work and movement building and not self indulgent carrying on.

How did His Majesty the president ever become a "constitutional scholar", anyway? He acts like he doesn't know any more about the constitution than our last prez, that fascist flunkie from Yale. Maybe he oughta take a crash course or two, just to refresh his memory. - AIW

KW -- Thank you for reading that reference referred to by global.

So, why don't you elaborate? What "more" (facts, I mean) would you have people consider? By the way, Rand Paul, et al require no assistance to maintain their demonic status.

It's a b tch to get republicans to see to reason. I work at it day in/out. Several people I know, incl my Bro, absolutely hate Democrats. So I've taken a tact that shows them how much of their earned income is squandered by the heartless rich. None of these people are rich but they like to hoard money anyway. They think that they're "voting their wallet" but in reality they're being scammed by monied interests who don't give a damn who gets hurt. And they'll turn around and do it again and again. They're gamblers without a clue.

Give them a clue.