In the case of the National Security Agency et al versus Edward Snowden, two fundamental, underlying questions, among others, largely go unasked. Whom are we protecting, and at what cost are we protecting them?
Fifth Column: noun. A clandestine group or faction of subversive agents who attempt to undermine national solidarity by any means at their disposal. Credit for the term belongs to General Emilio Mola Vidal during the Spanish Civil War (1936–39). -From Encyclopaedia Britannica
The Constitution of the United States of America (Amendment IV): “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.”
Firstly, the federal government enacted harshly punitive laws against using certain classes of neuro-behavioral drugs, undermining the spirit and intent of the original Harrison Act of 1914 to protect drug-users from impurities. In doing so, our government was depriving us Americans of our constitutional right, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, against unreasonable search and seizure. The stated goal? To be arresting and prosecuting newly-demonized “drug-dealers” engaging in the newly-coined term, “money-laundering”. One costly consequence? Loss of our liberty.
Secondly, the federal government, under cover of the Sixteenth Amendment, enacted a series of self-serving, oppressive, and regressive laws; wrote a series of self-serving, oppressive, and regressive regulations therefrom; and pursued a series of self-serving, oppressive, and regressive policies taxing the incomes of the creative and productive. In doing so, our government was depriving us Americans of our constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. The stated goal? To be obstructing the financial activities of alleged “criminals”, “terrorists”, and tax-evaders engaging in “money-laundering”. One costly consequence? Loss of our liberty.
Thirdly, the federal government, having opened the floodgates to a tidal wave of immigration, legal and illegal (including to millions of Mohammedans), ignited the fire of Mohammedan fanaticism by double-crossing our ally in Iraq, the homicidal thug Saddam Hussein, and stationing American troops, “infidels” to the Mohammedans, on sacred soil in Saudi Arabia albeit with permission. Then, the government unleashed a number of unconstitutional programs (e.g., the overt “Patriot Act” and covert “Prism”). In doing so, our government was depriving us Americans of our constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. The stated goal? To be minimizing the threat from “terrorists”. One costly consequence? Loss of our liberty.
Patriotism or Treason?
Now, we have the case of Edward Snowden, labeled “traitor” by the same politicians who, for decades, have been enacting laws one costly consequence of which has been progressive loss of our liberty. Who, then, is the patriot and who the traitor? The citizen, Edward Snowden, who, whatever be his motives, alerted us fellow-Americans to yet another and secret, costly loss of our liberty? The professional politicians [e.g., Dianne Feinstein (Democrat) and John Boehner (Republican)], who, while sitting in their plush offices in the District of Corruption at taxpayers’ expense ostensibly are defending and protecting us but at the cost of our liberty?
In making their case, these politicians claim that the NSA and its colleagues were acting within laws passed by these same politicians. Possibly. Even probably. Does enacting a law, however, necessarily render it in keeping with the U.S. Constitution or traditional American ideals? Does confirmation by the U.S. Supreme Court, known for changing decisions despite stare decisis, make it so?
As previously noted, in pursuing the story of Mr. Snowden, most in Big Media have been ignoring two, fundamental, underlying questions, among others. Whom are we protecting, and at what cost are we protecting them?
The politicians and bureaucrats defend their behavior based upon its consequence . . . namely, allegedly having obviated a number of terrorists’ attacks. As usual, in the name of national security, they offer no evidence, leaving questions unanswered. How many? How serious? How likely?
Let’s accept their defense as valid for the sake of discussion. Who, then, are these so-called terrorists, remembering that one man’s terrorist is another man’s hero . . . or heroine, as the case may be? Members of the IRA . . . of the Shining Path . . . of the KKK . . . of domestic, self-styled militias?
No! None of these organizations. All are members of the same religion . . . of Mohammedanism (aka/Islam) . . . acting in the name of that religion.
Should we, nevertheless, accept the cost of progressively losing our liberty in order to make America safe for Mohammedans, in general? How many actually support destroying our secular, democratic, republican form of government as conceived in 1776? Can one call oneself “Mohammedan” or “Moslem” or “Muslim” without dedicating oneself to destroying the traditional American way of life? What saith their own bible?
“When the sacred months are over, slay the idolators wherever you find them. Arrest them and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.” -The Koran, Repentance 9:5
For centuries, the Mohammedan religion dominated the world even in ways other than militarily.(1) Yet, one can make a case that Mohammedanism was created primarily in order to justify a single cause . . . conquest. If so, Mohammedanism represents a religion of war, as noted by leaders such as Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, not a religion of peace, as claimed by Bush the Second on 9/11.
In The Koran and in recent texts, Mohammedanism the religion, even if not each of its practitioners, declares war on apostates and infidels. One such text, for example, declares, “Apostasy from Islam is a grievous crime punishable by death.”
Neither does its declarations leave much room for idolatry, especially that of Christians. “. . . he should pay tribute to Muslims readily and submissively, surrender to Islamic laws, and should not practise his polytheistic (e.g., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; added) rituals openly.”(2)
Unlike Christians, Mohammedans may not render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s. In Mohammedanism, government and Allah are virtually synonymous . . . a concept that American atheists might do well to remember.
Furthermore, Mohammedanism justifies deceit . . . deceit by Mohammedans towards us, the “infidels”, not vice versa. What, asks Mr. Snowden, his personal motives aside, justifies such deceit by our politicians and bureaucrats towards us, the American public whom they supposedly serve?
Based upon The Koran itself, can one make a case that its adherents have no place in a free, democratic, and non-theocratic society? After World War II, did not the United States of America outlaw the Communist Party (The Communist Control Act of 1954) based upon such issues?
What about “moderate Muslims”? Even be there such a category in actuality, can authorities discriminate between those who neither would wage religious war against the United States nor would support such a war by deed or by thought and those hundreds of millions who would? By asking? Discriminating by asking them or even by demanding their swearing allegiance represents an exercise in futility, given that their religion justifies their lying in order to further conquest in its name.
Accordingly, can any Mohammedan reasonably and safely be granted citizenship or even legal residence? Should those already having emigrated to American shores or even those born here be deported to their respective countries of origin as a consequence of allegiance sworn under false pretenses?
Why are we Americans refusing to ask these questions? Because such questions demand difficult answers?
Abhorrent to some as they may seem, these questions can be ignored only at our own peril. One might deny Reality by feigned ignorance or indifference or even misguided ideology, but, ultimately, Reality always rules.
These questions reflect the consequences of actions by American politicians and bureaucrats of both major political parties. Many of these same politicians, while condemning the actions of Mr. Snowden, are defending the actions of the bureaucrats at the National Security Agency and elsewhere . . . actions brought to our attention only by the actions of Mr. Snowden.
Ask yourself the following question: After all the time, effort, money, injuries, and dying, are we Americans safer today from Mohammedans than we were in 1990 before Bush the First betrayed Saddam? If you answer, “No!”, you may wish to consider an alternative (www.inescapableconsequences.com) to that of sacrificing your liberty as the cost of condoning our current policies promoting supposed security . . . to consider an alternative while time permitting such a precious luxury remains.
1. Lewis, B: What Went Wrong? New York: Oxford University Press (2002).
2. Ben Hammad, AR: The Religion of Truth. Riyadh, KSA: The General Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, and Propagation (1991).