Posts
Do you want total privacy and freedom or are you willing to allow the government to place some restrictions on liberties we'd taken for granted on September 10, 2001? The current NSA scandal, where we've learned that they've been keeping Verizon phone records, puts that question right in the forefront of the public.
The president is telling us that our safety would be compromised with complete privacy because we'd be keeping the NSA from watching the "bad guys" if we don't allow them to have access to our phone records and emails. Not that they would be listening in on our conversations, but they would know who was calling the "bad guys," where they called from, and how long the conversation lasted. This would alert them to a possible terrorist attack, they say.
Crazy bull shizzle, if you ask me.
If they couldn't stop the Boston Marathon bombers, Nidal Hasan, the Shoe Bomber and the Christmas Ball Bomber, what makes us believe that they could sort through a billion phone numbers and have an "aha" moment? Russia told us about their suspicions with the Boston jihad terrorist number one. Hasan's business card practically said "I would kill for Allah dudes". But our government doesn't want to offend our potential killers. How sick is that?
How can a government actually do real police work when they refuse to recognize who the "bad guys" are? When they call Hasan's "Allahu Akbar" slaughter of unarmed military personnel an act of "workplace violence" rather than Islamic jihad, they are refusing to be honest with us.
A government that acts like everyone is a possible terrorist is as dangerous as the terrorists. By treating everyone the same without profiling, their efforts become so diluted as to be meaningless. Rather than strip searching an 87 year old blind grandmother in a wheelchair and refusing to allow her to bring a tube of Polident aboard the plane, TSA agents would be a little more effective focusing on 18 to 40 year old Middle Eastern males. But we don't do that because that might insult Muslims, some of whom want to kill us, and we would rather be dead than not be politically correct.
We have allowed this to happen because liberals have been calling the shots under Obama. Even more, CAIR, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, has been making a stink that has Washington jumping through hoops. Like Pamela Geller (of "Atlas Shrugs," an anti-Sharia, anti-jihad blog) has said, Obama may or may not be a Muslim, but he isn't doing anything that a Muslim wouldn't do as president. I agree.
So we need to ask ourselves whether the NSA should be allowed to continue keeping our phone calls on file; I actually don't have a problem with that. We also need to find Edward Snowden, the 29 year old egomaniac who believes he's saving America from an attack on our Constitution. He is not the person who decides what program(s) we need or are unconstitutional; that's beyond his pay grade. He probably has made the USA a bit less safe, but even there, I'm not sure. Incompetence is just as incompetent with information as it is without it.
Tweet
The president is telling us that our safety would be compromised with complete privacy because we'd be keeping the NSA from watching the "bad guys" if we don't allow them to have access to our phone records and emails. Not that they would be listening in on our conversations, but they would know who was calling the "bad guys," where they called from, and how long the conversation lasted. This would alert them to a possible terrorist attack, they say.
Crazy bull shizzle, if you ask me.
If they couldn't stop the Boston Marathon bombers, Nidal Hasan, the Shoe Bomber and the Christmas Ball Bomber, what makes us believe that they could sort through a billion phone numbers and have an "aha" moment? Russia told us about their suspicions with the Boston jihad terrorist number one. Hasan's business card practically said "I would kill for Allah dudes". But our government doesn't want to offend our potential killers. How sick is that?
How can a government actually do real police work when they refuse to recognize who the "bad guys" are? When they call Hasan's "Allahu Akbar" slaughter of unarmed military personnel an act of "workplace violence" rather than Islamic jihad, they are refusing to be honest with us.
A government that acts like everyone is a possible terrorist is as dangerous as the terrorists. By treating everyone the same without profiling, their efforts become so diluted as to be meaningless. Rather than strip searching an 87 year old blind grandmother in a wheelchair and refusing to allow her to bring a tube of Polident aboard the plane, TSA agents would be a little more effective focusing on 18 to 40 year old Middle Eastern males. But we don't do that because that might insult Muslims, some of whom want to kill us, and we would rather be dead than not be politically correct.
We have allowed this to happen because liberals have been calling the shots under Obama. Even more, CAIR, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, has been making a stink that has Washington jumping through hoops. Like Pamela Geller (of "Atlas Shrugs," an anti-Sharia, anti-jihad blog) has said, Obama may or may not be a Muslim, but he isn't doing anything that a Muslim wouldn't do as president. I agree.
My latest novel, Jihad
Joe, is about Islamic
terrorism and suspense. In it I challenge the precepts of the religion
through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who
is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three
Gitmo prisoners. Of course, American policy demands we never give in to
terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment