The “very concerned” U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch
[courtesy Google Images]
“Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the USA Freedom Act, which would reform aspects of the Patriot Act and put an end to the government’s bulk collection of phone records.
“Section 215 [of the Patriot Act] has been the legal basis for the intelligence community’s bulk metadata collection.
“U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she’s ‘very concerned‘ about what could happen if section 215 of the Patriot Act, set to expire June 1, is not reauthorized by Congress.
“My biggest fear is that we will lose important eyes on people who have made it clear that their mission is to harm American people here and abroad,” Lynch said in an interview with CBS.
By “people who have made it clear that their mission is to harm the American people,” does Mz. Lynch mean only foreign terrorists, or does she also include the federal government–which is certainly bound to “harm the American people” by depriving us of our rights and liberties?
“The Justice Department’s inspector general recently found the government failed to properly implement guidelines limiting the amount of data collected on Americans for seven years.”
.
Did government “fail” to obey the law “for seven years” by accident?
Or did government intentionally disobey the law for seven years?
If the violation of the relevant law was accidental, the violation would be of a civil nature. If the violation was intentional, the violation would be of a criminal nature.
If the Justice Department’s inspector general found evidence of persistent violations of the law by the government, will Attorney General Lynch prosecute any of the government officials responsible for those seven-year-long violations? If not, why not?
If the government won’t enforce its laws against members of the government who violate those laws, why should Americans trust their government?
“Lynch said she’s concerned the U.S. will lose valuable resources for tracking terrorists if the law expires. ‘I think that we run the risk of essentially being less safe,’ Lynch said.”
.
“Less safe” from who? From the terrorists? Or from the government?
And, when she refers to “we” being “less sate,” does she mean “We the People” being less safe from foreign terrorists? Or does she mean “we the government” being less safe from the American people? Which “we” is she talking about?
If the Patriot Act is diminished, do We the People become less safe from the foreign terrorists?
If the Patriot Act is fully reenacted, do We the People become less safe from our own government?
Who poses the greater danger to the American people: foreign terrorists or the federal government?
“I think that we lose important tools. I think that we lose the ability to intercept these communications [between terrorists], which have proven very important in cases that we have built in the past. I am very concerned that the American people will be unprotected if this law expires.”
.
(As you’ll read, Mz. Lynch’s statement about continued telephone spying being “very important in cases that we have built in the past” has been contradicted by the FBI.)
Yes, Americans might be less protected from foreign terrorists if portions of the Patriot Act are allowed to expire.
But, conversely, Americans will be less protected from our own government, if all portions of the Patriot Act are “reauthorized”.
So, who is more to be feared: foreign terrorists, or American governmental officers bent on treason and oppression?
• The problem is that many Americans wonder if we have more to fear from the terrorists–or from our own government.
We see regular reports about cops shooting unarmed people under questionable circumstances and routinely getting away with their crimes.
We know government has claimed immunities for itself and its employees that at least allow, and may even encourage, abuse of governmental powers and attacks on the People’s Law: the Constitution.
We see the Congress enact laws like ObamaCare and even the Patriot Act without even reading the act before they vote for it or against it. By failing to even read the proposed laws Congressmen and Senators express their contempt for the American People.
We hear the Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton cynically laugh that “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste”. Like most of today’s politicians, they’re not in office to solve crises, but to exploit them. (Some say, to cause crises so they can be exploited.)
Americans have been living in a government-declared “state of emergency” since A.D. 1933. Under the pretext of that 82-year long “emergency,” the constitution is largely suspended and government is unlawfully empowered.
President Obama expressly refuses to enforce laws that prohibit illegal aliens from entering and emigrating into this country. He openly refuses to enforce deportation laws. In doing so, Obama not only refuses to perform his constitutional duties, he conspires with known criminals (illegal aliens), and engages in treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemies of The United State of America. And no one in the Congress, Senate or courts speaks out against this treason.
We have a military that invades countries without cause (Iraq) and engages in hostilities around the world under the pretext of “fighting for our freedoms”. I say “name two”. . . . Name two American freedoms that have been threatened by Iraq, Iran, ISIS. Which freedoms do the terrorists threaten? Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms?
The only people who threaten our freedoms are those in our own government. Only our own government restricts our freedoms under the pretext of fighting terrorists.
But if we define the term “terrorist” to mean those who “threaten our freedoms,” who is the bigger terrorist—ISIS or the federal government?
It may be true that Muslim terrorists take some of our lives from time to time, but only our government can take our freedoms.
Who is more to be feared? The Muslim terrorists who might knock down one of our buildings every so often–or the federal Government that persistently knocks down our Constitution?
As Americans are increasingly asking questions like these, Americans are increasingly opposed to reinstating the dictatorial powers established by the original Patriot Act.
Government pretends to be shocked by our distrust. How can they protect us, the little people, from the terrorists if we won’t abandon our freedoms and let government become openly dictatorial?
Well, it might be that only the federal government can protect us from foreign terrorists.
But who will protect We the People from the federal government?
Punchline
Yesterday, The Washington Times published an article entitled “FBI admits no major cases cracked with Patriot Act snooping powers”. According to that article, yesterday, the justice department’s Inspector General said,
“Between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations.
“However, FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act.”
.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch claims to be “concerned” that government may lose some of its capacity to spy on the American people in order to protect the American people from “terrorists”–even though the FBI says government’s capacity to spy on the American people hasn’t prevented a single major terrorism act since the Patriot Act was passed in A.D. 2001.
The government exaggerates the threat of terrorism (“boogeyman-ism”) to generate a crisis that can be exploited to gain power over the American people.
Government doesn’t care about stopping terrorists.
Some people are convinced that the government is the real source and cause of much of the world’s terrorism. Half the country believes that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers, Building 7 and the Pentagon, was an “inside job” conducted and condoned by our own government.
Government knows that only the American people pose a significant threat to the U.S. government’s powers. The government’s primary objective is to spy on the American people because the government fears us as enemies rather than respects us as the sovereigns government is constitutionally-bound to serve.