WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE: Rep. Peter King Supports NSA Spying on National and International Level

YH-Peter-KingI read in this morning’s Washington Times that New York Representative Peter King continues to insist that the vast spying being done by the NSA on American citizens as well as foreign nationals is essential to our security, and that had it been expanded to the point that it has grown twelve years ago, could have prevented the terrorist attack of 9/11.

“I live in New York,” the Republican told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I lost some 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on Sept. 11. If the NSA had had this metadata in 2001, that attack probably would not have happened,” reported the Times.

This preposterous statement is wrong on two levels. First, one could always argue that if there were a policeman attached by handcuffs to every citizen we would have no crime. The individual would be monitored 24/7 and he couldn’t go to the bathroom, literally, without the policeman observing his every action.

Apart from the obvious trampling into the dust of any pretense of caring about the human rights of the citizen, this could never work because the policeman would himself be human, and as such, subject to temptation and/or politicization. Have there ever been crooked cops? Is Holder’s Department of Justice actually meeting out justice? Are our elected officials uncorrupt? Please!

The reality is that due to man’s fallen nature, no matter how much freedom we surrender to the government there is no guarantee that peace, justice, and happiness will result. In fact, if you look at the track record of totalitarian regimes in history, notably in the 20th Century, you will see that about all a totalitarian government can guarantee is that horrendous numbers of people will die, and those who do not will be miserable. Look at North Korea today, and I need say no more.

Our Founding Fathers never dreamed of the computer technology that exists today that allows the NSA to monitor our every communication, and incredible things like spy satellites, whether they belong to the NSA or to Google, that can literally photograph us as we go about our daily lives. They did know, however, the importance of freedom, and they understood very well that governments will always try to take those freedoms away.

Our government has had many leaders, some of whom were benign and understood freedom, and others who were egomaniacs and part of the “intelligentsia” who thought that they knew better than the Founding Fathers and everyone else, and that they alone had the solution to all our problems. Ronald Regan and most earlier presidents represent the first group, while Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and now Obama represent the latter group.

Naturally, they wouldn’t gain much support by telling you that they are going to suspend the constitution (like Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus), Instead, they have to tell you that there is a “crisis” of some sort (e.g. terrorism) that requires unusual measures, taken of course for your own good.

The second problem with King’s argument is that the government has already had its chance. We know that in many of the terrorist attacks various government agencies did in fact have information in advance about the terrorists, and the attacks took place anyway. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing for example. Tamerlan Tsarnev was a devout Muslim who, in the three years before his death, became more devout and religious, and a YouTube channel in his name linked to Salafist and

Islamist videos. The FBI was informed by the Russian Federal Security Service in 2011 that he was a “follower of radical Islam.” He was also linked to triple homicide in Waltham, Massachusetts on the evening of September 11, 2011, where the victims had their throats slit so violently that they were nearly decapitated. However, with all this evidence and more, the terrorists were not deported and unhindered in their heinous bombing attack.

Amazingly, so-called “scholars” and Obama’s administration deny the obvious connection with other islamic terrorism. According to Tsarnev’s mother, “They (the FBI) used to come (to our) home, they used to talk to me … they were telling me that he was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him,” Tsarnaeva said. “They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites… they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step… and now they say that this is a terrorist act!”

The FBI initially denied this, but then admitted it, but blamed it on the fact that the Obama administration had made changes in the FBI training manual. According to Breitbart, the departmental counter-terrorism analytic lexicon was purged of key words that could reference Islamic terrorism.

Words like Muslim, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and sharia were not mentioned once in the FBI’s counter-terrorism lexicon afterwards. So, the FBI, which apparently was in constant contact with the killers, almost to the extent of the handcuff example above, was so politicized by Obama that it ignored the obvious and allowed the slaughter to occur.

Or, consider the Ft. Hood incident. As Mark Steyn reported, “Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. Major Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put ‘SoA’ – ie, “Soldier of Allah” – on his business card.

At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for trying to persuade patients to convert to Islam, and fellow pupils objected to his constant ‘anti-American propaganda’. But, as the Associated Press reported, ‘a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.’”

Steyn goes on, “As the writer Barry Rubin pointed out, Major Hasan was the first mass murderer in US history to give a PowerPoint presentation outlining the rationale for the crime he was about to commit. And he gave it to a roomful of fellow army psychiatrists and doctors – some of whom glanced queasily at their colleagues, but none of whom actually spoke up. And, when the question of whether then Captain Hasan was, in fact, “psychotic”, the policy committee at Walter Reed Army Medical Center worried ‘how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents?’”.

It didn’t stop there. When he got to Ft. Hood, Hasan started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment center in Little Rock. “This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,” Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. “People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.” What did Lee do about it? “You need to lock it up, major,” advised the colonel. Officials thus knew this guy was a homicidal jihad-promoting wacko and did nothing.

Obama naturally continued the charade, labeling Hasan’s one-man jihad “workplace violence”. Despite his admission not only of guilt but of the motives for his crime, he sits in prison at taxpayer expense awaiting an appeal. “On what possible grounds?” any sane person would ask.

No, Representative King, further erosion of our rights will not guarantee our safety. In fact, the administration’s incessant push to disarm us with more and more “reasonable” gun control will in fact make us even more susceptible to these terrorists, as well as to the government itself.

The reality is that our government generally does nothing but lie about, deny, and make excuses for its failures. King’s statement about how everything will be hunky dory if Americans will only give up a little more of their freedoms is both absurd and dangerous. With Republicans like King, who needs Democrats?

About the author: Pat Henry

Pat Henry is a columnist and a patriot from Hanover County, Virginia, a state that resisted ratification of the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added to protect the people’s individual rights, which shall not be infringed.

View all articles by Pat Henry
Share Your Comments
Trending Now on GJWHG