- Special Sections
The Barack and his cabaâ€¦, sorry, I meant to say, the "present administration, keep telling us all of the monitoring of our phone and e-mail data is being done so they can "protect" American citizens. Looked at one way, I could almost agree with them. After all, I've long made the case that the mainstream media doesn't have the best interests of America at heart. Since it came out even before we found out (honestly, who didn't already know this) about our own phones being invaded that the government was monitoring at least some (wink, wink) reporters, I guess they could say they were merely investigating anti-American activities. I mean they could have said that except it appears what they really were doing was investigating anti-administration activities. Then of course it turned out reporters weren't the only ones being monitored. Never fear, I'm sure Eric Holder will get right on this and bring the responsible parties to justice. At least I'm sure he would do that if he wasn't so busy getting to the bottom of "fast and furious".
The sad thing is the main stream media is so firmly in the Obama camp that it exhibits real paranoia on the part of the administration when they go after AP reporters. What's next? Is Chris Matthews going to find out the "tingle running up his leg" is really voltage from the monitoring device the NSA placed where his frontal lobe would have been if he had one?
As with most things the administration says, monitoring us because they have the safety of American citizens firmly in mind is not the whole truth. After all, not that long ago there were some American citizens in desperate trouble. These people were letting everybody they could get in contact with know they were in danger and fighting for their lives. Of course I'm referring to the Benghazi debacle. If the administration was so concerned about the lives of Americans there was a golden opportunity to prove it. Not only was military force (which by the way, is tasked with protecting Americans) available, but there is no doubt in my mind that it could have been brought to bear in time to help those poor people. Despite the fact that Obama has done his best to gut the military and hobble it with ridiculous rules of engagements, the American military still remains an effective force that is willing, and able, to kill people and break things all over the world at a moment's notice. What better use for the (available) military personnel and hardware than defending American citizens, who happened to also be in the employ of the very government they were appealing to for help? So basically, these people were placed in harm's way by the very administration which wouldn't "take their call" when lives depended on it.
Anyway, let's take a look at what the administration has to say about the necessity of gathering our personal information to protect us. For the moment, until the next distraction comes along, they seem to have hung their hat on two things. First, again, they say they regard protecting Americans as one of the highest duties. I would agree with that, except I don't see an example of them following through. The one instance that does come to mind is the Benghazi episode I mentioned above, and that's the exact opposite of protecting Americans.
The second point, as I take it, concerning the administrations statements is that the data they are gathering has helped prevent attacks, and will help prevent future attacks.
Okay, since I think the cat's pretty much out of the bag (for the few people who really were oblivious) concerning the data the government admits collecting (versus what they're probably really getting), let's hear about some of these successes. Don't just tell us how great it is that the government is involved in every phone call and e-mail, show us. In other words, make me a believer. No need to tell us about any sensitive ongoing investigations, just detail some of those successfully stopped attacks we're being not told about (sound of crickets chirping).
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the same administration who missed all of the warning flags put up by Nidal Hasan claims they need our personal information to keep us safe? What they are telling us is that they need the data they are collecting to help stop terrorist attacks, yet when Nidal Hasan jumped up on a desk shouting Allah Ahkbar and tried to kill every American in the room, it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. Hasan didn't suddenly pick up a gun and use it to murder Americans, he took a long, and surprisingly well documented time to finally reach the point of committing murder during the commission of a terrorist act (not "workplace violence" as the administration claims).
Okay, maybe (but I seriously doubt it) all of these "data collection safety programs" started after Nidal Hasan committed a terrorist attack. I don't notice it successfully stopped the Boston Marathon bombers. Don't get me wrong, pretty much any crime is solvable and obvious in hindsight after all the facts come out. However; it looks to me like the two terrorists (who were on our public dole by the way) would have generated just the kind of data points through their e-mail and phone traffic that the government claims to be looking for. In spite of all of that the bombers were not stopped, committed their terrorist attack, and pretty much shut down an entire large metropolitan area all by themselves. Not the kind of results The Barack claims he can and has achieved by data mining our personal contacts.
At the end of the day, the same administration that calls a terrorist attack "workplace violence", says they want to protect Americans, but sits on their hands when real Americans need real protection, and can't seem to get to the bottom of systemic abuses at the IR$ and Department of Justice, is assuring us that collecting our private data is really for our own good. Hmmmâ€¦, what could possibly go wrong here?
Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.