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.
So, you're comfortable with the idea of wearing a head to toe garb with just your eyeballs visible behind a mesh screen?
'Live free or die; Death is not the worst of evils'
The most appropriate responses whenever this supposed dilemma is brought up.
Actually, the ACLU crowd is a classic example of someone who would cut of your nose to spite your face, but your point is well taken.
Shame on this Administration for preying on the irrational fears of timid people like you.
Is a terrorist just the ones who blow up buildings or does that include those that aid them? And if so how do you define aid? Is aid limited to materially assisting them or does it include moral support? And if it includes moral support then does that support include anyone who opposes the U.S. actions in Iraq? See? The whole question of who is a terrorist depends on who is doing the defining. The question of what laws should be followed and what laws can be ignored shouldn't be.
There are far too many appeasers on these boards. Probably because "their guy" is in charge.
And yes, your comment was in the right place.
The ACLU isn't interested in protecting civil liberties. It's interested in bashing President Bush. In the same way it trashes Christian holidays and values, but has no problem when California school districts order students to be Muslims for three weeks and pray to Allah.
bump for later read
Lolol No sarcasm tag needed on your post. My tag line speaks for me. :-)
Liberals, Democrats and Socialists in this country are blinded by by their hate for anything Republican.
They are also desperate to obtain and keep power. They would let this country be overrun with a 100 million illegals, if they thought it would bring them the vote....which is where we are headed.
The ACLU is not germane to my point.
There have been so many stories on this it's hard to know what actually happened. I've heard international calls only then it was international calls terminating in the U.S., then it was international calls originating in the U.S.
When an enemy of this country makes a phone call from overseas into our country, the president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has the constitutional right and the duty to examine that phone call. It all falls under the current war being waged against al-qaeda.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Free, when convenient.
And you or I saying Bush didn't break the law doesn't make it so, either. All the facts need to be examined by competent authorities and the matter brought to trial if the evidence warrants. Only then can the statement that the law was or wasn't broken be made.
Right between abortion rights and gay marriages.
What good does it do to be alive, but not free.
"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."
Islam cannot defeat us militarily. The only way for us to lose our civil liberties is at the hand (and jackboot) of our own government but only if we let it happen.
So you believe those to be Constitutional?
Crap! I forgot to ping you Badray! Head here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550421/posts
Both of those events took place at a time when more people and more people in government had an appreciation for liberty -- despite the extraconstitutional measure taken by government. Both were still wrong.
Nowadays, more people seem to care about safety, not liberty.
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.