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.
Numerous times I have stated this here at FR and slowly it seems to be getting across.
Islam is NOT simply a religion.
It is an all-in-one package, (a way of life), an ideology, a form of government and a religion all rolled into one.
That's the legal fiction.
Against Islam.
mark
We HAVE freedom, we haven't lost it. Listening to intercepts of terrorist will not destroy this country...it will preserve it.
Yes sir I do.
No, it means that there are some 'packs' (I won't name any names here) here on FR that attack newbies who dare to disagree and sometimes individual posters can get nastier than they should. I made the offer because I do love a good argument, er discussion.
I will say that none of our antagonists here have exhibited that type of behavior. The discourse here has been pretty spirited, but civil and we are willing to help you get your minds right. ;-)
That's what you are doing when you buy a gun or draft a bill of rights. You are worried about something that hasn't happened. You are worried that someone may take your life or liberty.
Then you need to complain about what J.Edgar Hoover did.
He's dead, I don't complain about what dead people did. There are enough live people bothering us.
Listening to intercepted phone calls from al queda will not destroy this country.
Then why not give everyone the right to listen to Al Qaeda phone calls? The more ears the better.
If they are righteous...what are they doing in embarrassing positions?
People are human, even Republicans. They may have made mistakes early in life or have been falsely accused. Look at what they did to Linda Tripp regarding that shoplifting beef. Or they may have relatives who were dopers or homosexuals. Even honest people can be blackmailed or intimidated.
I don't see it as the evil you do. You see it as political blackmail gain. I don't think Americans would sit too kindly for that.
It happens all the time and they do sit quietly. When Clinton was being impeached the White House was talking about a "doomsday weapon" of personal muck that would bring everybody down. No wonder that most of the worst charges against Clinton were dropped.
We lost the freedom to discriminate in the 60's with the civil rights movement.
We've lost the right to carry weapons on airlines.
When did we have a right to carry loaded guns on an airplane?
We've lost the fourth amendment right when we travel or enter a government building.
With psychos gunning down women and judges in courtrooms, I'd say it was a prudent measure.
Private pilots have lost the right to fly over certain airspace under penalty of being summarily shot down.
After 9-11 you want them flying over the WH? Planes can be hijacked. I agree with this as well.
We've lost the right to go to the bathroom in the last ten minutes of a commercial flight.
Isn't that for safety reasons? Would you want to be in the bathroom if the plane blew a tire on touchdown? Safety reasons. Not political.
Not to appear to be a wise ass or anything, but...duh. Who wants an idiot yelling bomb on a plane. You're not allowed to yell fire in a theater.
It's not my government I'm worried about taking my life, it's terrorist. They planned 9-11 for over two years.
Then why not give everyone the right to listen to Al Qaeda phone calls? The more ears the better.
I already answered that. It would be chaos and anarchy. 300 million people yelling at the same time. Leave it to the professionals. They have the higher pay grade. :-)
It happens all the time and they do sit quietly. When Clinton was being impeached the White House was talking about a "doomsday weapon" of personal muck that would bring everybody down. No wonder that most of the worst charges against Clinton were dropped.
Then they put career over country. I hadn't heard about the 'doomsday weapon' I'm curious now.
I don't think so. I saw an international poll once about attitudes on America. Depending on the country, there were a lot of mixed feeling about us. But one thing that was consistent was that America is necessary for peace in the world.
Anybody want to see if they can dig up this poll? I'm getting tired.
"Rather than let the government listen to Al Qaeda, let everyone listen." You're talking total chaos and anarchy. Too many cooks spoil the broth
How so. What's wrong with an international neighborhood watch? The Washington Sniper terrorists were caught because a citizen was listening in on a police radio. The information that the snipers were in a maroon Chevy was being withheld from the public but a bunch of truckers picked this up on a police scanner, (illegal in some jurisdictions), the car was spotted at a truck stop and these Muslim terrorists were apprehended.
People scoff at the idea of citizens stopping terrorist acts but it does happen.
Good question. I can't remember when congress 'enacted' [without the power to do so] a federal 'law' saying we couldn't.. -- I flew several times in the sixties with a pistol [unloaded] & ammo in my carry on bag, and never gave 'legality' a thought, as no one ever looked in your luggage..
Anyone remember?
And if the American people in general cannot be trusted to be a good citizen, what makes them so trustworthy when they become part of the government?
Okay, I'll try again.
we elect our politicans to do our work for us.
I suggest we should be doing things that our politicians have been doing for us. Maybe things like patrolling the border, or tending to airport security.
In a utopian world that could happen, but not in reality. Our government people come from our pool of Americans.
But when those ordinary Americans become federal employees, they are often shackled by clumsy rules and oppressive and often corrupt supervisors. For example, airport screeners who are told they can't give more attention to dark, swarthy middle-eastern men. Or the border patrol agent who is told he can't apprehend illegals after hours even though he sees them passing by in trucks.
That's true enough. But that wasn't international listening. That was local. They speak in Arabic, how many Americans such as you and I speak arabic? I don't.
I agree with Bush. If al queda is calling someone in this country, I want to know why. It's legal.
Are you talking about second ammendment rights? It seems that, actually some of those are coming back (concealed carry, and the new FL law whose name I forget, where you don't have to run away from a fight). I realize those are on the state level, but it seems that we are winning that one to some extent.
susie
When they are just citizens they speak for themselves. When they are elected, it's their job to speak for us. I believe term limits would would make honest politicans. Until we have that, we can only go by their past records
Yes, in my humble opinion, the ADA is probably the one thing most responsible for the mess we have in our schools. That old law of unintended consequences. I was most amazed that parents bought into the idea that their child who really needed more help was better off in a regular classroom with a teacher who was not trained to deal with kids with any special needs.
It's sad because we could have the best schools in the world with the money we put into them. Of course, I am actually against any Federal funding for schools and think they would be far better off without it.
susie
I never thought of it that way, but yes! LOL
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.