Living under Shari'a Law? You're implying that without national ID we'll be overrun militarily and ruled by an occupying force, such as post WWII Japan. Such a scenario is laughably absurd, and only makes for a pithy non-excuse for national ID.
No military force on Earth can occupy the United States. You know it, I know it, and most importantly Islamonuts know it. That's why they don't send armies, they send terrorists. Terrorists cannot hold ground, they can only do some quick damage in which they are also killed.
A more realistic question you might ask is would I prefer a higher risk of another successful terrorist attack to national ID. To which I say: HELL YES. Why? Because when given a choice of liberty or death, free people choose liberty or they don't stay free.
Now there is one way we can be subject to Shari'a Law: we can impose it on ourselves. Why would we do this? Because of the absurd immigration policies neo-cons love so much allow for pretty much anyone to emigrate here and start voting. In the pure democracy we've become, all Sharia's advocates need to do is win a voting majority.
Now, let's see if you can answer without a dodge: do you have an alternative, besides denial of the problem?
America will continue to draw terrorism so long as it continues to interfere with other nations. Since a face to face fight is not preferable to our enemies, they will always choose the hit and run tactics of terrorism. A national ID will not change that fact. A departure from the megalomanical foreign policy will.
Virtually everything on this site is about freedom!
...he says, moments after advocating biometric national ID. At least neo-cons are consistent in their hypocrisy.
"No military force on Earth can occupy the United States. You know it, I know it, and most importantly Islamonuts know it. That's why they don't send armies, they send terrorists. Terrorists cannot hold ground, they can only do some quick damage in which they are also killed."You're half there. Have you not yet realized that, while invincible militarily, our military can be rendered impotent and we can easily be defeated politically, and that the Left helps fight that battle on the side our enemies?
And they most certainly can hold ground once we've lost the will to fight.
Even the North Vietnamese were aware that we absolutely would have beaten them militarily, had they not been handed the political victory by us.
Our loss during Clinton in Somalia, a country we were trying to help feed (your "interference") was a political loss, not a military one.
Israel today is losing politically and facing a very real existential threat, while sitting on a vast but impotent military machine.
On the day of his capture, the mastermind of the nightclub bombing in Bali thanked the anti-war protestors in America for their support.
Now there is one way we can be subject to Shari'a Law: we can impose it on ourselves. Why would we do this? Because of the absurd immigration policies neo-cons love so much allow for pretty much anyone to emigrate here and start voting. In the pure democracy we've become, all Sharia's advocates need to do is win a voting majority.Again, I agree with you 100% on this point. Their war is three-pronged: (1)demoralization through dramatic but strategically insignificant terrorist strikes, (2)a political win by mobilizing our own liberals to speak unwittingly in favor of action (or inaction) that favors the terrorists' desired outcome, and (3)a demographic war.
But get real! This immigration policy is most certainly NOT purely a neo-con construction - the groundwork for this sort of open border mindset was laid decades ago BY LIBERALS, the chief architect of which was largely Teddy Kennedy. The minority-group vote-pandering was a game created and mastered by liberals, and now you feign concern that conservatives are playing the game too? Please!
"America will continue to draw terrorism so long as it continues to interfere with other nations"Ah yes, this empty rubric. Total crap. Fact Check: Terrorism grew and flourished and Osama bin Laden found tolerance and encouragement during the laisez-faire foreign policy days of Bill Clinton. Tell me this: what lesson did bin Laden derive from Clinton's non-response to the first WTC attack, the non-response to the bombing of the USS Cole, the non-response to the bombings of our Embassies (having an embassy is "megalomaniacal interference?") in Africa, or the tail-between-the-legs retreat from Somalia?
Need I remind you that 9/11 happened a mere 9 months into Bush's presidency, after having been planned and coordinated as a follow-up to the previous unsuccesful attempt to take down the World Trade Center during Clinton.
Or would you mind telling me exactly which "megalomaniacal foreign policy" of the 9-month-old Bush administration brought on 9/11?
Meanwhile, in complete contravention to your assertions, our "megalomaniacal foreign policy" has induced Libya to renounce its covert nuclear and WMD programs without a shot fired. How do you explain this? Shouldn't our policy have induced them to step-up their efforts and cultivate more terrorism? Why did the exact opposite happen?
Finally, upon what fantasy do you base your belief that the Islamocultists would simply leave us alone if we would just "mind our own business"? Please try to reconcile your opinion with the clear, unequivocal declaration from many top Islamic clerics that their goal is to destroy the US and spread the domination of Islam worldwide.