White House Trying To Get Information On Citizens from sites like YouTube and Twitter

[think]

I thought your boy was supposed to get rid of the Patriot Act??? He just hasn't found the time now has he? lol

You are correct in that the last administration did use spying on Americans to some extent but Obama wants to take it to a new level. He wants to collect information on his enemy's so he can destroy them with it. Typical Chicago thug politics.

You are absolutely correct we need to get rid of the Patriot Act and I do not support Obama for allowing it to continue. I am opposed to Obama's support for the FISA act compromise. I am against sending more troops to Afghanistan. I will criticize decisions made by my president when I feel he is wrong because I won't support any party or politician blindly.

As for your assertions of spying to destroy enemies that is more of a Neocon activity like Karl Rove would conjure up. You know like the case of ex governor Don Seigelman:

Karl Rove can't help himself. The more he talks the more he suggests that he's guilty as sin. His throw-crap-against-the-wall-and-hope-it-sticks piece in The Wall Street Journal constitutes his latest non-denial about corrupt dealings with the Justice Department.

Rove gives himself away in his nonsensical lies regarding the inquiry into the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman.

The allegation that Rove took action to influence the prosecution is pretty straightforward. Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a former Republican operative, testified about a conversation she had in early 2005 with Rob Riley, the son of current Alabama governor Bob Riley. Rob Riley told Simpson that Karl Rove had contacted the head of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, to make sure that Gov. Siegelman would be indicted for political corruption. The alleged motivation was to take Siegelman, a popular Democrat, out of the running for the 2006 governor's race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_264230.html

Here is Turd Blossom's own words in his defense if you would like to hear his side. I included his claim that Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to testify his editorial. The link for his entire response is included as well:

Judiciary Democrats asked little about Don Siegelman's bribery conviction, despite overheated assertions by the Times, Scott Pelley of CBS's "60 Minutes," and various MSNBC talking heads that I was behind the prosecution of the former governor. Judiciary Democrats didn't get testimony from either Mr. Siegelman or Dana Jill Simpson, the eccentric Alabama lawyer who drew attention by publicly supporting the allegations. Committee staff confided to me that they considered her an unreliable witness. I also understand that Mr. Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to cooperate with the Justice Department's review of his claim of political persecution, while I willingly gave sworn testimony.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...363745662.html

Both Seigelman and Simpson deny Rove's charges. Simpson claims she gave testimony and Siegelman was never asked and to testify:

n a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Rove said Siegelman and Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson “refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s review” while Rove willingly testified.

Simpson said that’s a lie. She gave sworn testimony to committee staffers on Sept. 14, 2007. And Siegelman was never called to testify, although he said he would have.

“In fact, there’s no indication that the Justice Department has considered the prima facie evidence of lying, concealment of evidence and witness intimidation by federal prosecutors,” the Huffington Post reported.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/articl...ove-to-testify

To continue. US Representative John Conyers had this to add:

Conyers earlier this month directly blamed Karl Rove for the firings, saying "This basic truth can no longer be denied: Karl Rove and his cohorts at the Bush White House were the driving force behind several of these firings, which were done for improper reasons."

But in his editorial, Rove wrote the 2 1/2 year House Judiciary Committee investigation into the firings showed that his role was "minimal and entirely proper.

Not so, according to Conyers.

On Karl Rove: Mr. Rove's self-serving assertions on this subject are simply inconsistent with the documents that the Judiciary Committee recently released and his claims have been discredited by the analysis of the documents and reporting on these matters by credible news outlets across the country. Anyone interested in the truth can read the documents for themselves (here) or the reporting on these matters from papers large -- Washington Post (here) and New York Times (here) -- and small -- Kansas City Star (here). Mr. Rove's points are largely a repeat of his prior discredited statements, and the purpose of this post is not to rehash Mr. Rove's rehash.

On the Wall Street Journal: What may be of broader interest is the apparent editorial decision of the Wall Street Journal to prominently feature Mr. Rove's self-serving assertions in its editorial pages, while burying and redacting the original story documenting the facts contained in these documents.

On Rupert Murdoch: When Rupert Murdoch acquired the Journal, substantial concerns were raised about the number of media properties he owned and the right wing bias of his news ventures. Many questioned whether the Wall Street Journal would become just another New York Post or, worse, Fox News. ...The Journal's handling of this chapter of the USA scandal seems to bring that question to a head -- is it a sign that the editorial staff of the Journal's news division -- or at least its editing -- has taken on Murdoch's right-wing bias?

Rove, for his part, accused the New York Times and Washington Post for unfair coverage, writing that, "Unfazed by facts and left with nothing to support their suspicions, the Times and Post editorial boards and Judiciary Democrats now seem to hope that special prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who is looking into the U.S. attorneys removals, will dig up something that implicates me."

One thing is for sure: Those attorneys weren't fired by the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. Nonetheless, they've somehow become the debate.

"If anyone is owed an apology," Conyers wrote, "it is the Journal's readers who depend on the Journal for fair and accurate coverage of the news."

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...ashes_bac.html

This is the real effort to use political influence to destroy your enemy if you choose to admit it.

But if you have evidence of Obama copying your posts on the White House's Facebook account to destroy you please post away.

[JMJ]

Mainstream media just now catching on as usual a few weeks down the road.

EXCLUSIVE(as if they were the one's breaking the story): W.H. collects Web users' data without notice
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-data/?page=2

[Raider]

I will criticize decisions made by my president when I feel he is wrong because I won't support any party or politician blindly.

That's good to hear Think, It's very unfortunate that most other Obama supporters cant find it in themselves to do the same.