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 dont think we can assume that. A basic tenent of media is that if it's unusual, it gets lots of media time, because it will interest people. I taught at a HS for 5 years. I never saw most of what we hear about in the media. For the most part, the inmates were running the assylum.
BTW I think homeschooling is the way to go.
susie
If this was a matter of the President's collecting information to use against his political enemies, then that would be a concern. But that doesn't appear to be what's happening here.
As I see it, the federal government's listening in on a terrorist plot in someone's phone conversation ranks about the same level of intrusiveness as their searching through that person's luggage for a bomb.
They certainly aren't doing everything they should be doing, (and do alot of things they shouldn't) but when they do something they should be doing (defending us against evildoers) they get raked over the coals. Maybe they just can't decide which thing will get them less bad press.
susie
"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."
I agree completely...I would only add to that list.
Complete overhaul of the immigration process, better oversight on shipping containers coming into the country, and checking the cargo in passenger flights..But I must say, I agree completely with where you are coming from. You are a wise man.
If by checking the cargo in passenger flights you mean passenger's bags (maybe you mean something else) why is that not terribly intrusive? I really hate the idea of those guys looking at my undies!
susie
What Badray said. If you are involved in a flare-up on these boards, just add our names to the "To" box in your posts and we'll come and give you some help.
You missed my point. Freedom without a country to practice it in, is useless. ie:freedom taste good on a cracker.
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.
There will be no tyrant in the United States. I have more faith in our citizens to believe that for a second. How do you suggest that we rebuild buildings should the worse scenario happen? Our economy will be destroyed. No money.
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.
How long would we stay rich? Let's say for the sake of argument that New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and any large city was wiped out. Do you honestly think that people would be scrambling to rebuild cities or scrambling to feed people? With our open borders anything is possible.
If al queda is calling 555-2355, I want to know who they are talking too, that could prevent that scenario from ever coming to fruition.
That's why we are strong and they are weak. Freedom creates free enterprise which creates wealth that we need to create a strong military. They have to use box-cutters.
In our world rights can be regained and reinstated.
Don't that for granted. If we lose enough of our rights, we may never regain them because we won't have the freedom to do it.
Americans will never lose the 2nd amendment.
Some already have. In New York City and some other big cities.
As far as she becoming president...she isn't going to become president.
How about Al Gore? He came within a few votes of becoming president.
You freakin' rock!
Or in laymans terms, if you start something you can't finish...call for backup.
Sometimes shippers will ship via passenger flights to cut costs, plus it's a money maker for the airlines. So essentially what happens is cargo gets onto passenger planes that has no "passenger" to go with it. (Basically it means that bulk cargo is shipped in passenger flights.) Yea, I don't like the idea of my undies looked at either, but this is actual bulk cargo that has not been screened, and the person that is sending it isn't screened either..
OK then I agree with you. Actually, I wouldn't like my undies looked at (oh gosh, I can hear the laughter now!) if it meant the plane would be safer, then I would go for it. But, in the name of full disclosure, I don't fly anyway, so it's rather moot.
susie
Terrorists hate us for our freedom for a very practical and rational reason. They want to take freedom from their people. They want to control and subjugate people and they want them to believe that it is necessary.
But when those people see that America is a strong and wealthy nation, even though we are free, it puts the lie to their claims.
Therefore they have to either destroy us, or to eliminate our freedom.
That was in 2001, the box-cutters. In 20006, they're talking about nukes.
Don't that for granted. If we lose enough of our rights, we may never regain them because we won't have the freedom to do it.
I do, because I have more faith in our citizens.
Some already have. In New York City and some other big cities.
You're talking about a leftist liberal city. They don't like guns. You can bet any other city you're talking about is a leftist one in a blue state.
How about Al Gore? He came within a few votes of becoming president.
And one of those few votes was mine. But close only counts in horseshoes.
Excellent post!
This is a common argument to justify rollbacks in the Bill of Rights. "The founders didn't know about automatic weapons", so let's retire the 2nd amendment.
But since we can't bring them back to life, this is an academic discussion. The fact that give truth to their arguments is that we haven't called a constitutional convention to update it to modern times.
The author of this article has a loss of perspective that borders on delusional.
It appears that the ACLU considers the enemy (terrorlamists) of their enemy (free capitalist america) their friend.
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.