Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
December 30, 2005 - The argument over whether President Bush has the authority to direct the National Security Agency to listen in on the conversations of suspected terrorists on US soil is split primarily into two camps; those who believe we are engaged in a war for our very survival against radical Islam and those who believe – and always have – that terrorism operates under a set of rules that govern its actions and therefore should be treated as a law enforcement issue. This is just another example of why there should have been a formal declaration of war after September 11, 2001.
It needs to be repeated as many times as necessary until every single American acknowledges this supposition as a distinct possibility; should we lose this war against radical Islam and the terror it uses to breed fear and submission, our way of life, our government and our country, will cease to exist as we know it.
Those on the “progressive” left have just begun mentally chewing on what for them is a gargantuan idea, that the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are but battles in a much more monumental war. Those who understand the danger facing our country have come to the realization that there are two major fronts in our struggle for survival; the physical front (locations of armed conflict) and the ideological front (where the battles for the mind of a society take place).
It is very important to be victorious on the physical battlefields and so far we have been successful. As much as the “progressive” left and the mainstream media would have us believe that we are struggling to achieve victory, the evidence of our success is overwhelming and validated by the millions of purple fingers we have seen in Iraq over the course of three truly free elections. It is further evidenced by the free elections in Afghanistan and accurate polling of both countries that indicate their people believe that their “future’s so bright they have to wear shades.”
If we are to compare Iraq to Vietnam in any way at all it would have to be in contrast. US military efforts in Iraq stand as testimony to the idea that if allowed to do their jobs, and complete their mission devoid of interference from the “progressive” elite in Washington DC and their blind followers who haven’t the vision to see past the daily protest march, the US military will always be victorious. They are superiorly trained and equipped, and motivated by the desire to fight for the freedom of oppressed people rather than, by gutless default, pave the way for tyranny.
More difficult than armed conflict, the ideological front is a battle for the will of our society and is already taking place on our own soil. The controversy over the NSA directive issued by President Bush is a prime example.
Again it needs to be repeated as often as need be; should we lose this war against the oppressive mandates of radical Islam our country will cease to exist as we know it. There will be no civil liberties. There will be no judicial recourse. There will be no petitioning of our government. There will be no First Amendment rights, or Second, or Third. If we fail to be victorious over the fundamentalist zealots who promote radical Islam, not only as a religion but as a totalitarian way of life, this “experiment in democracy” that is our government will be, if texts other than the Quran are even allowed, a short chapter in The History of Infidel North America Before Islam.
It is ironic then that an organization such as the American Civil Liberties Union is fighting for the “rights” of those who would dismantle and outlaw the ACLU, if not behead its leaders, should radical Islam be victorious.
It is paradoxical then that defense lawyers are attempting to have courts overturn the convictions of confessed terrorists and self-avowed al Qaeda operatives. For these lawyers to stand on principle is one thing, for them to stand on principle only to see their freed clients return to the battle against the very principles used to free them is quite another.
It is reckless for “progressive” politicians and activists to be arguing points of order regarding the president’s execution of this war effort when the same points of order, directives and tactics have been used by past presidents and validated by established courts and authorities. In fact, their obstinate refusal to acknowledge recorded history can very well be considered aiding and abetting the enemy and there are consequences for those actions written into the Constitution, unlike the mounting number of fictitious rights frequently referred to by the “progressive” left.
In an effort to safeguard the ideological liberties the Framers had in mind at the writings of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, the “progressive” left is willing to enable our enemies to use our own system to bring about our country’s demise. If the “progressive” left is truly supporting our troops and if they truly want to win the war against the encroaching influence of radical Islam and the terror they use to victimize all who stand in their way, if they are really on our side then it is time for their actions to speak for them instead of their words. So far their words have been selfishly divisive and irresponsible. It is beyond naïve to believe that their words are not being put to good use in the ideological battle our enemy is ruthlessly waging against us.
There was no point in responding, because you offer opinion, and nothing else. I agree that the second amendment should be protected, but the modern civil liberties movement is about restricting the rights of people, not increasing their rights. We just got through with Christmas and another wave of the civil rights infringements on Christians. The best example is how the civil rights of Mohammed Atta trumped the right to life, liberty and happiness that those killed in the towers inherently had. You have your opinion, and your welcome to it, but that is all it is, an opinion.
Do you think that the Bill of Rights should be subservient to the right of the Federal government to provide for the common defense? I don't, for two reasons.
1) Our rights were there before the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not say that it can be suspended.
2) For practical reasons, most our security is (or was) provided by the Bill of Rights. The second amendment even mentions it.
susie,
That woman screaming at you for taking pictures was another part of the 'potential terrorist' treatment. There are signs in the Social(ist)(in)Security buildings forbidding you from taking pictures. Suddenly, taking pictures is a terrorist activity.
Do you lock your door at home? Have a security system? I don't have a problem with private entities exercising caution in protecting their property but they do so at their expense and you are not required to interact with them. You don't have to buy jewelry or buy it where you are treated in a manner that you do don't like. When you carry a briefcase or purse into the jewelry store, does anyone rifle through your bag? You aren't strip searched or felt up before being allowed to enter the store, are you?
I have no such option with government. They can compel me to do business with them. At the airport, they ignore the 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure, they ignore the requirement for probable cause.
You 'feel free', but are you?
Can you rent a room in your home to whom you choose? Can you deny that room to anyone? Who owns your propterty? You, who paid for it or a bureaucrat at the EPA? Can you develop your land without getting an EPA approval that no endangered flea lives there? If he controls your use of the land, is it really your land? Is your home safe from a government taking? Can you flush your toilet with more than 1.6 gallons of water? Are you free to remit the money extracts from you at your convenience or is it taken before you ever see it? Are you forced to fund things that violate your religious or moral beliefs? Can you hire whom you choose or must you meet quotas? Is the basic right to self defense encumbered by stupid regulations that do nothing to hinder criminals?
I could go on and on but you get the point. We have accepted so many intrusions into our lives that we no longer react when another one happens.
I am quite free too but only because I purposefully ignore and violate certain rules and laws, but I do so knowing that there may be a price to pay for it some day. I harm no one and take nothing that is not rightfully mine, but would be considered a criminal because I don't conform. I may someday be labeled a terrorist because when the government says jump, I don't ask how high. I love my country, but I do not trust the government.
Just read the paper on any given day. I'm not talking about the baseless charges of the whacked out left. I am talking about the daily reports of government officials, at every level, in every capacity, all over the country, who are indicted, convicted, and jailed for criminal behavior. Offenses range from the mundane to the extraordinary, but many involve violating the rights of individuals in one way or another.
From the routine criminal violations, move on to those who inhabit the halls of government who have never held a real job. Many of these act as though they were ordained by divine right to be our leaders. Such thinking is dangerous to liberty. Our Founders knew that and expected us to not have a huge government to eat out our substance but they did know the nature of man and men with power. They never expected that we would allow a few to hold power throughout their lifetimes. If there was a flaw, it was in not imposing term limits on all offices.
Do you beleive that the Congress or the courts or the President have the legitimate authority to do many of the things that they do? How much of what they do is blatantly unconstitutional but done anyway? Do they do it benefit you or to buy votes with monies from the public treasury? There are some good people in government, or at least they were intent on doing the right thing when they entered government. Sadly, it doesn't take long for even the best of them to become part of the problem. They feather their own nests and protect their jobs with our money and by the laws that they promulgate. Then they order defenses set up to defend themselves against attack.
Take some time and review in your mind's eye where government security measures are taking place. You hear about Homeland Security, but what and who do they really protect? You and me? Maybe by coincidence. Are they at your office building running scanners looking for bombs? Or are they just at the Federal buildings? Does your local government protect the department store and mall or just their facilities?
In more than one ruling, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the police do not have a duty to protect you, only society in general. I am now wondering if that applies to the officers who are on duty at the government offices? Are they required to protect government officials even though police in general are not required to protect us. Hmmm.
You are afraid. You think our freedom is worth our destruction? Freedom taste good on crackers. In the end, both will be lost, for a time. Freedoms can be regained, destruction and anniliation cannot. If you haven't figured that out, your in worse shape than I thought. I'm willing to go down swinging to prevent our destruction, you are not, and that is what seperates us.
and I refuse to change my life because of what someone may or may not do to me. In my view, that is letting them win.
That's killing them before they kill you.
You just keep getting better.
I just don't believe it's worth giving our freedom up for..Our president says that they hate us for our freedom, well why give them what they want, and make ourselves less free?
According to your own words our freedom isn't worth fighting for. Don't do anything, don't change anything, they'll leave us alone. You're stupid and an appeaser to boot.
Secondly, if you are afraid go into "protective custody" or go hide behind mommies skirt, because I don't want to give up my freedom because you're a chicken...I'm really confused about the changes my party is going through right now. I never thought I would witness the party I have always associated with courage and strengh wimp out like it is right now.
What you are witnessing is the opposite of what you are seeing. Appeasers and apologist be damned. You see it as wimping out, I see it as growing balls.
You belong at DU, that's their opinion as well, to see this country destroyed just to preserve rights that would be the first to go. Wear your damn burka. Women have so many rights under shira law.
Oh and BTW...kiss my ass newbie.
Right on the money. One of the things they are doing is getting Americans accustomed to the notion that we must do whatever we are told. Children, especially, are being acclimatized to a fascist atmosphere in public school, like suspensions and expulsions for minor, trivial infractions.
Could you envision a government you would trust? susie
Great find, thanks for posting it. Welcome aboard.
Wow!
If ever there was a case of three fingers pointing back at yourself, you are it when you point the finger at me.
I stated that your understanding was lacking. If you want to cry about that being an insult, go ahead.
I stated my position clearly and nothing that you said rebuts any of it. You still lack an understanding of what our Constitution is and what it's intent was and remains.
BTW, 'a more perfect union' was only meant to say that under the AoC, the 'union' was less than perfect because certain weaknesses existed. It did not create the Federal government as an all powerful new body to dictate to us or to the States. It can only do what it is specifically empowered to do and nothing more -- no matter what the necessity -- without the proper authorization of additional powers through the amendment process. And that process was not one to be taken lightly because of the risks involved with ceding more power to the government.
I think one of the reasons we haven't had any more attacks on us (that Al-Qaeda has taken credit for) is that when we are attacked, we retaliate by liberating another Islamic country. Some countries do the opposite, like Spain electing a Muslim friendly regime in response to the train bombings.
That's what leftist and liberals are doing to our public schools. Conservatives are fighting it. Don't paint with a wide brush, you catch everyone with it. There are two sides to that debate.
Trust totally? No.
Trust more? Yes. The one that our Founders outlined for us. It would be about 10% of it's current size and with 90% smaller scope of authority.
If I had my druthers, there would be no agency at the federal level that was not specifically authorized in the Constitution.
Does that seem radical to you?
Have you actually been to a public high school anytime recently? This is laughable. We do occasionally read stories of schools that went overboard on some issue, however mostly this is a reaction to kids who have not been taught basic manners or that you cannot just do whatever you want to whenever or where ever you are and expect the rest of the world to think you're cute.
susie
You miss the fact that those special powers were assigned days after 9-11. So your still flapping in the constitutional breeze.
Well, you can kiss my ass, newbie.
You are here a bit over a year and you think that that somehow qualifies you to be rude to a newcomer who doesn't agree with you?
Conservativehoney has shown more respect for the rules here being new than you do with your 15 months of experience.
You are confusing your desire to feel safe with actually being safe. CH is willing to risk her safety to be free. I'd rather her have my back anytime than I would you.
I believe that you owe the lady an apology now.
ch, I really hope that you are a lady. LOL
No, I'm actually pretty big on State's Rights. However, one of the few things the Fed govt was tasked with doing is protecting us. I see this as them doing that. So, rather than a big brother is watching you sort of thing, I see this as finally, they're doing what they're supposed to be doing.
susie
Special powers assigned by who? By what process?
Delegated powers must be through the amendment process, not a declaration of a judge, not by a simple vote by Congress, and certainly not via an executive order.
So tell me again who authorized these 'special powers'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.