New York Times to Americans: Embrace Big Brother, he’s watching anyway

The New York Times published an op-edthe other day in defense of warrantless government surveillance titled “Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe.” Big Brother himself couldn’t have come up with a better title.

The piece begins with this claim: “This is an extraordinarily dangerous time for the United States and our allies.” Let me start here by asking New York Times editors, why this is a such an extraordinarily dangerous time for the United States and our allies. You said that Donald Trump was going to destroy peace on earth. He instead brought us closer to peace. He did things that I never thought could be accomplished in my lifetime.

Congress, including 30 Republicans, voted that Fourth Amendment rights do not matter. They put your rights in the backseat to bureaucratic expediency.

You said that if Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel, we would break out into war. The opposite happened. We were forging historic peace accords. So, why are we in an extraordinarily difficult place? I think that’s important to answer before you offer a solution.

Permit me to make a few obvious points. Our economy is out of control. Who was it that caused that? Morgan Stanley came out and said we have two years to take care of our debt or we’re done for. Two years! Do you think we’re turning the corner on that one? Do you think the next election will change that? Do you think that our current government even cares about that? No.

We pulled out of Afghanistan and showed the world that we were absolutely insane. Then, we encouraged a war and are paying for a war in Ukraine. Then, we sent money to Iran and said, “You’re off the hook with us. Just pinkie promise that you won’t do anything.” And it did! What a shock.

The people who caused this problem cannot fix the problem because they don’t recognize that they are the problem. Who was it, exactly, New York Times, who has neglected our national debt, our economy, and has funded foreign wars to the precipice of World War III? It certainly wasn’t Donald Trump.

The op-ed goes on:

Israel’s unpreparedness on Oct. 7 shows that even powerful nations can be surprised in catastrophic ways. Fortunately, Congress, in a rare bipartisan act, voted early Saturday to reauthorize a key intelligence power that provides critical information on hostile states and threats ranging from terrorism to fentanyl trafficking.

Yes, powerful nations can be surprised in catastrophic ways. But catastrophic things can happen to powerful nations that are not surprising at all. For instance, every American knows right now that we have an open border. If the Times was serious about catastrophic things happening in the United States, it would be paying attention to our open borders. It would call on Congress and the president to seal it off and make sure that only people we could vet could come into the United States. But it's not serious. It's using the crisis for its own benefit. Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? It is using the crisis to distort and control.

The op-ed, of course, takes jabs at “ignorant” people like you and me who have raised concerns about the bill:

Civil libertarians argued that the surveillance bill erodes Americans’ privacy rights and pointed to examples when American citizens got entangled in investigations. Importantly, the latest version of the bill adds dozens of legal safeguards around the surveillance in question — the most expansive privacy reform to the legislation in its history.

That's because the bill does erode Americans' privacy rights. Congress just keeps on giving the executive branch more power.

The piece continues:

At the center of the debate is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Originally passed in 1978, it demanded that investigators gain an order from a special court to surveil foreign agents inside the United States. Collecting the communications of foreigners abroad did not require court approval. That line blurred in the digital age. Many foreign nationals rely on American providers such as Google and Meta, which route or store data in the United States, raising questions as to whether the rules apply to where the targets are or where their data is collected…
In 2008, Congress addressed that conundrum with Section 702. Instead of requiring the government seek court orders for each foreign target, that provision requires yearly judicial approval of the rules that govern the program as a whole.

Do you have a problem with foreign targets? I don’t. This is not even what we’re talking about. Why does the New York Times believe it’s important to explain that part? Because I don’t think anyone has a problem with it. People like me who are concerned about Section 702 don’t have an issue with targeting foreign threats. That’s not partisan. That is common sense.

The issue at stake is the targeting of American citizens by consequence. The op-ed writers don’t merely say this is “inevitable in today's globalized world.” They insist it “can be vital for U.S. security.” So, in other words, you can do nothing about it anyway. You better just accept the fact that your digital communication can be searched and seized without a warrant.

In fact, the op-ed makes the claim that “requiring such a warrant would have been unnecessary and unwise. Getting a FISA court order is bureaucratically cumbersome and would slow down investigations.”

Well, we wouldn’t want to slow anything down! If someone has a brush with somebody under FBI investigation without their knowledge, let’s just throw ’em in jail. Let’s cut through the bureaucratic nightmare of the Constitution. If your rights take a backseat to bureaucratic expediency, that’s just something you will have to deal with. It’s all for the sake of the “greater good,” safety, security, and government efficiency.

To the ire of our bureaucratic states, it turns out you do have rights. In this specific case, you have the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. It's called the Fourth Amendment. But now, your Congress, including 30 Republicans, voted that your Fourth Amendment rights do not matter. They put your rights in the backseat to bureaucratic expediency. They swore to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” If they continue to sacrifice your rights on the altar of federal bureaucracy, does that not make them the enemies they swore to protect you against?

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep and more delivered to your inbox.