Many Of You May Be Interested In What THIS Guy Has To Say, Re: FISA/NSA/Snowden...

[JDPriestly]

144. I won't disagree with you there.

But then, let's admit that President Obama, like Clinton and the Bushes and Reagan before him, does not have the courage or means to stand up to those very same corporations. He has two children to educate after he leaves the White House.

That is why you and other DUers should understand that this is not about Obama. It is about us as citizens in a country in which the Constitution and our Bill of RIghts in particular is considered by the very corporations you are talking about to be the enemy.

When these corporate flunkies (and there are too many of them to name individually) talk about fighting terrorism, their aim is focused on the very freedom that is guaranteed to us only by that piece of paper on which is written our Constitution and in particular on the Bill of Rights. In fact, the entire concept of separation of powers is under attack. The corporations want it all -- the ballot boxes, the Senate, the House, the courts and, of course, last but not least, the White House.

Nobody is attacking President Obama in particular. We are attacking the corporation-dominated system to which the person in the White House, no matter his name or party affiliation, is beholden to.

Nobody is attacking a specific person. But all of us need to work together to demand better.

Back beginning in the late 19th century, working Americans worked together to form labor unions and improve working conditions. Today we need to work together to insure that we maintain our basic rights including the right to vote in honest, free elections -- that right on which the rest of our rights rely.

So, we are not so far apart. We need to listen to what Snowden is saying.

One of the questions that this surveillance scandal raises is whether it would be possible (and may be already done) to track votes as they come into the state reporting offices from the precincts with huge computers. Could a sitting government plug into the vote reports at the level of their transmission from the local computers to the state vote-count headquarters and alter the results? or closely track the results and interfere somehow?

Could there be and has there ever been vote-tampering via a system like this surveillance one?

Is that what happened in 2004?

Could it happen in the future?