Barack (not George) wants to track you by use of your cell phone

Remember back when the left was freaking out about about the NSA terrorist surveillance program initiated by George Bush (in the wake of 9-11) whereby the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor phone calls and other communications involving known or suspected terrorists (or their associates) coming into or going out of the United States without a warrant?

Among his many (unkept) promises, Obama posted this one on his own website page – “BarackObama.com”:



Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps.


Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.

In 2007, the Bush administration asked Congress to grant the telecom companies immunity from the lawsuits being filed against the telecom companies and while the majority of Republicans supported the measure. In the meantime, MoveOn and other extreme left liberal bloggers threatened to wage war against both Hillary and Obama in order to pressure them into supporting Chris Dodd’s vow to filibuster any Senate FISA bill containing telecom immunity. Both caved to the wishes of their base and Obama spokesman, Bill Burton issued a statement to the liberal blog TPM Election Central:

“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

But after that amendment failed, Obama declined to filibuster the bill. In fact, against his promise to his liberal puppet-masters, he voted for it. Then, during his presidential campaign in July of 2009, Barack Obama back-peddled on his previous opposition of what the left called the NSA’s Domestic Spying Program (in spite of its actual title of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillace Act), rather than DISA – Domestic Intelligence Surveillance Act) pledged that, if he were elected president, there would be “no more wiretapping of American citizens.”

Leaders on the left were so determined to prove to their base world they were committed to crushing this horrible breech of civil rights by George Bush they included the promise in their 10/8/2007 Democratic Agenda to:

Reimpose a strict ban on warrantless wiretapping of American citizens and block amnesty and immunity for telephone companies that illegally spied. 

Well, now Obama is president and, as we have become accustomed, The One who vowed Americans would no longer be subjected to wiretapping is all for a program to track the location of American citizens by way of their cell phones. Tomorrow, the Third Circuit federal appeals court will hear oral arguments in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices… and, therefore, the people who are holding them.

The Obama administration argues that, in this case, centered around drug trafficing (unlike an attempt to thwart terrorists from killing Americans), warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Imagine that… Where liberals once screamed foul that George Bush ordered the monitoring of phone calls going in to and going out of the US from, or to, known or suspected terrorists and phone companies who participated in that measure should be tarred and feathered… that when Obama says Americans should have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” and it is decided their “Fourth Amendment rights are not vilolated when a phone company reveals to the government its own records” it is fine and dandy and is met with silence…

My, what a difference a “historic” and “unprecidented” presidency makes.