Posted on 09/28/2010 3:59:43 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet
We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn’t know it from our behavior.
During WWII we didn’t refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters. We didn’t call the Gestapo, militants. We didn’t see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors. We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault. We did not grovel before the Nazis, thumping our hearts and confessing to abusing and mistreating and humiliating the German people. We did not apologize for Dresden, nor for The Battle of the Bulge, nor for El Alamein, nor for D-Day.
Evil – ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake.
In WWII we won because we got it. We understood who the enemy was and we knew that the end had to be unconditional and absolute. We did not stumble around worrying about offending the Nazis. We did not measure every word so as not to upset our foe. We built planes and tanks and battleships and went to war to win….. to rid the world of malevolence.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn't know it from our behavior. During WWII we didn't refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters. We didn't call the Gestapo, militants. We didn't see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors. We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault.
"Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London, from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza, the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists.
To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable."
What most leftists do, namely, that you can tinker with America to "improve" it --- a measure here, an expenditure there --- without dismantling its foundation. Many people on this very forum, supposedly conservatives, do the same when it comes to economics: the anti-capitalist rage is rampant and equally unfounded.
The truth is, people who don't know how the country and the world in general work do not see the interconnections and consequences of specific actions.
Stop blaming the Far Left. The Fat Left may have started this, but neo-Marxism is now mainstream. When one speaks of minorities, women, underprivileged, one speaks in terms of class rather than individuals. Marx spoke in terms of economic classed, and an average American divides the country into other classes (hence prefix neo), but classes nonetheless.
The Rabbi closes with a contradiction to his plea! ... “The Muslim community has the absolute, constitutional right to build their building wherever they wish.” The enmey is using our Constitution against US. I am no longer tolerant of this tactic. There is no Constitutional right to plan sedition and carry it out, which is exactly what the Muslim center at ground zero will accomplish, as a symbol for radical Islam (and there really is no other entity of Islam) to rally around in their continuing assault on our Republic as they inveigle for their Sharia enslavement of we the people. There has to come a time when the murderous enemy is no longer granted the same rights as We The People.
No more base camps/barracks for Islam in the U.S.A.
The twin towers of totalitarianism, Mecca and Medina, will become a smoldering ruins one day.
Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians.
(put that in your sermon and smoke it, rabbi)
Your argument is, in essence, that the messenger is more important than the message.
You do not argue about the validity of the article, but solely restrict your opposition to the faults of the person delivering it.
And that is wrong on all accounts.
Swing and a miss. Strike one.
The comment was never about the article in the first place, although it referenced elements from the article. Try reading it again. My comment was about the characterization given by the poster of the article.
Once you realize that, it should clear it up for you.
I followed him ‘til the last paragraph. Then he failed to make the necessary conclusion. Yes, they have the constitutional right to build their mosque over there, despite the fundamental indecency of it all. But the construction workers have a similarly fundamental right to refuse to go to that job site. It’s called “freedom to contract and from contract,” and if the subcontractors and contractors cursed with performing this filthy job have a problem with it, let them go hire some scabs.
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.