Did you vote for Obama? If so, you voted for the monstrous military spying network that has been targeted against America’s civilian population.
Let’s be honest about this: Since 2008, it’s been quite clear, to those who cared enough to pay attention, that Barack Obama never had any intention of dismantling George W. Bush’s electronic surveillance operations. In 2008, Senator Obama broke his previous promises and voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act. We protested it. Voters ignored it.
In 2009, independent progressives did their best to hold Obama to his promise that he would reform the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. But, we pointed out that Barack Obama kept the NSA spying going. A talking toilet from Irregular Times spread the warning that, under Barack Obama, the military’s National Security Agency was spying on Americans. Yes, we were so desperate to get the word out that we animated a talking toilet.
Democrats pretended it wasn’t happening. Obama got re-elected.
All the while, the Green Party has been paying attention, and speaking out against the Homeland Security surveillance state. In 2012, Jill Stein solidly criticized Obama for continuing George W. Bush’s old anti-liberty policies.
Now, in 2013, the presidential campaign is over, but the Green Party has not grown silent. The Green Shadow Cabinet is speaking out in protest against the National Security Agency’s spying against the American people.
Shahid Buttar, the Director of Civil Rights Enforcement, has responded to the revelations of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional seizure of millions of Verizon telephone records by pointing out the a larger context to the problem: When extraordinary powers are wielded by the government, we can’t trust secret courts to protect our constitutional rights. Buttar writes, “Courts exist to enforce our rights in the face of government abuses. That’s one of the central geniuses of the founding fathers and the system of checks and balances they constructed. But when the decisions are secret, they stop being judicial in character. Law is built on mutual references among courts. When the law can’t reference itself, it stops being law, and emerges as something very different: in this case, a rubber stamp allowing any manner of dragnet violations impacting law-abiding Americans and our fundamental rights.”