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.
I believe "convenience" went away when those aircraft slammed into the WTC and the Pentagon and crashed into that field in Penn.
If you are a member of a political party, the information collected from a phone tap can be used against you. It was used against Newt Gingrich when someone intercepted his cell phone call.
Information is power, and if you collect enough information on anyone, you can rule him. One of the very first things the Clintons did after they entered the White House was to requisition about 900 FBI files on various politicians.
Tyrants use bugs, and wiretaps all the time to control the opposition.
I would suspect that we are not really all that far apart, but if they do kick in my door or try to quarter a soldier here, you'll be reading about it in the paper. The headline will read:
"Crazed, lone gunman dead in gun battle with police".
The truth will be different, but that's how you'll recognize the story. Thanks for your offer to help. ;-)
Well stated. Thanks for a being voice of reason.
He could equally be talking about terrorists.
susie
He also says it is a religion of peace. Ya think some of that is just political talk?
I don't understand the rest of your post. How are we less free? What could he do to make us more free? susie
LOL
I think most of us agree on most things. I used to have this argument with my son all the time. Suddenly, he's turning into a conservative, I think.
What I really wish is that some of our founding fathers could come back, look at the world today (technology, the geopolitical landscape, etc) and tell us exactly what they think NOW about what they said THEN. I am willing to be absolutely wrong, but I would like to hear it from their lips (and not old quotes in which no one could have possibly imagined today's world).
I need to go work on that time machine!
susie
Exactly. When you give someone the right to not be discriminated against you take away someone else's right of free association. We once had that right. People who run airlines should have the right to deny service to people or to search a person based on whatever criteria they feel is appropriate without fear of being dragged through court.
In the first part, it might be construed as such. The second however, is quite clear. He is talking about men in government and not ceding power to them.
Government -- any government in any country -- can, and usually does do more violence to it's own people than is done by invaders. We have been quite free of that because we have zealously guarded our liberty and limited the power of our government.
Throughout history, as government grows it works to protect itself more than it does to protect its citizens. It becomes a power unto itslf. It doesn't seek to become smaller or to make do with less funding. It always seeks more.
As one of the Founders properly noted, "When the government fears the people, you have freedom. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny."
Remember too that the government that is large enough to give you everything that you want -- including the illusion of safety -- is also large enough to take everything that you have.
Enumerate what you think the govt should do (in the area of our safety).
susie
If you get it working, please take me back with you to their time. I would love to spend time in their presence.
I believe what they laid out for us is quite astute and based on an understanding of people and human nature and holds true regardless of the times. Freedom is freedom and tyranny is tyranny. Men will promise to be good masters, but they intend to be your master.
The Internet and the Uzi machine pistol would not change their minds about our rights to free speech or the right to keep and bear arms. I do believe that they'd be appalled that we let government and our tax burden grow to the proportions that we have. Of course, this is speculation based on my reading of their own words.
I've got to run, but it was great chatting with you. And don't worry. I'll work with you to get your mind right. ;-)
Happy New Year!
What does not being a democracy have to do with whether or not the Bill of Rights can be suspended?
If anything, the reverse is true. Being a constitutional republic where certain rights are guaranteed and the power of the state is restricted by the Constitution would imply that the Bill of rights is inviolate. But a "democracy" can do pretty much whatever the elected leaders deem appropriate.
Freedom is not a frivolous luxury, it is what we need to live our lives, create wealth and, most important of all, defend our security.
Freedoms can be regained, destruction and annihilation cannot.
Backwards. We can always rebuild our buildings. Terrorists can never kill so many of us that we cannot replace our population. But once enough freedom is lost, it can be nearly impossible to get it back. A tyrant can not loosen his grip without losing his life.
This country is the richest country in the world largely because, for years, we were the most free. Freedom creates wealth and wealth creates security.
Whenever you feel the urge to give the Federal government more power, always ask yourself this question: "Do I want President Hillary to have this authority?"
Our founders couldn't. Just about every other word in the Constitution restrains, limits and circumscribes the government.
And we should fight it. For the same reason, real conservatives believe in limited government, not expanding its authority.
We read about it pretty much every week. And the press only gets wind of these stories when someone complains to them -- so we can assume it happens more often.
Kids being sent home because they had a Advil tablet, or they drew a picture of a gun, or they had something with a religious symbol, or they had a religious discussion. Kids being scolded for praying over their lunch.
Fascism.
I might buy this if I didn't see them completely ignoring things that they have been specifically tasked with doing. They should be controlling the borders but they don't. But what they do seem to be doing is enlarging their authority to restrict our rights and collect information on us.
That's ok, I have to feed my husband on occasion too.
I agree with most of what you said, however, I'm not sure we have really worked out what's private and what's not in our brave new technological world.
susie
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.