- Text smaller
- Text bigger
This will appear self-evident to some, but I find it necessary to articulate the imperative that we do not fall into the trap of even considering the entreaties of the president, his administration and other agencies who contend that recently revealed activities of the National Security Agency were restricted to terror-related investigations. “Nobody is listening to your calls,” as President Obama said, is a lie – or a gross misrepresentation, if government officials happen to be relegated to reading transcripts, as opposed to examining the digital media itself.
I would imagine it’s probably about as accurate as “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan,” and plays to nothing less than sheer gullibility.
It is also evident that despite “bumps in the road” presented by the Benghazi, Internal Revenue Service, Associated Press, NSA and other scandals and the widespread suspicion they have generated, this administration intends to forge ahead as though none were the wiser. This was punctuated last week when Obama appointed Susan Rice as his new national security adviser, and White House aide Samantha Power as his nomination to replace Rice. As the serial liar in the Benghazi aftermath and a hardened communist respectively, these two women are among the worst representatives for the U.S. interests imaginable, in any venue.
This flagrant rewarding of criminality with a coveted political appointment (in the case of Rice) was also seen by Americans as Obama casting a huge middle finger in our direction.
This week, House Speaker John Boehner stated that Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old contractor who revealed the NSA’s clandestine surveillance of Americans “a traitor,” chiming in with the administration’s contention that the top secret NSA programs were anti-terror efforts and that Snowden’s actions substantively compromised them. This pablum is for the most intellectually indolent of Americans, and reveals the senior Republican lawmaker to be among America’s real traitors.
In the case of the president’s damage control, the administration is relying on Americans’ ignorance with regard to due process and investigative procedure. If authorities in the course of an investigation require specific information unattainable without surveillance, they obtain the proper authorization and proceed. The rationale that this massive federal dragnet was done with the safety of the American people in mind is almost laughably implausible, and if terrorists were its target, the administration would be guilty of monumental inefficiency.
We cannot forget that Obama and his close colleagues are Marxists, and that most Americans remain unaware that this is the spring from which all of this evil flows. The infringements via communications and Internet companies and surveillance of journalists are right in keeping with Marxist doctrine, as was use of the Internal Revenue Service to harass and intimidate political opponents. This strategy can also be extrapolated from designs under consideration by radicals for decades, as well as the writings of Obama mentor Saul Alinsky.
In defraying Americans’ suspicion, it has been pointed out by liberals and the administration that much of the framework for clandestine government surveillance was constructed under former President George W. Bush. This is true, but it is also specious and self-incriminating. How one individual wields a weapon once it has been handed off from another is irrelevant to the actions of the one who formerly possessed it. Then there is the fact that these abuses were indeed anticipated during the Bush administration; it is why both liberals and conservatives (though not universally) frowned upon these utilities. Obama has obviously affirmed their misgivings.
Leaving aside the nefariousness of the programs involved, how many confidential communications (such as those involving doctor-patient confidentiality, clergy-congregant confidentiality or any number of other sacrosanct confidences) were violated by the NSA, I wonder. Given the dizzying whirlwind of scandals, few are considering these smaller – though eminently practical – issues.
Presuming ignorance of Obama’s Marxism, we still have common-sense deductions, such as: If the administration were genuinely concerned about national security, it stands to reason that it would have refrained from enacting innumerable policies which dramatically compromised our national security. The president might not have projected weak foreign policy, facilitated jihadists abroad, tolerated them domestically and insinuated Muslim Brotherhood operatives in high-level government positions. How, with all of their expertise and technology, was the government unable to stop two kids with bombs in their backpacks – of whom the FBI were already aware – from detonating them in Boston on the 15th of April?
There remains much more evidence of Obama’s guilt, both direct and circumstantial. One may recall a secret meeting that the president held with Internet and social media bigwigs in February 2011. It was represented as promoting Obama’s education initiatives, yet its secrecy speaks volumes in the context of recent developments.
The administration’s “overreach” is speaking to others as well: Two days ago, Reuters reported that the government of Germany is outraged over Obama’s spying program, likening it to the tactics of the East German Stasi (the secret police of the former German Democratic Republic), and intimating that it may include our allies as well. Obama is slated to visit there next week, which I await with eager anticipation.
We must look to the forest of criminality rather than the trees of leakers and the nuances of individual scandals. The administration and its powerful allies are desperately working to divert our attention from the stark reality that we are indeed, as talk show host Rush Limbaugh said last week, “in the midst of a coup.”
From the economic overreach and intrusion of Obamacare, to massive assaults on the Constitution and everything in between, they are relying on Americans’ inability to recognize their evil as their greatest weapon.