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.
Yep. It's Realpolitik at its zenitith. Started by avowed socialists/communists hiding behind the veneer of a lofty sounding name, promoting ideals they frame as "protecting constitutional liberties," all while systematically eroding the foundations and culture of America to promote its own selfish world view. They are very good at pulling in naive up-and-comers out of law school and hooking them to the cause by partnering them with bitter ideologues.
'Give me liberty or give me death'
'Live free or die; Death is not the worst of evils'
Bet you are good at picking fly feces out of pepper as well.....
You kind sir...just may end up "Dead" right....
The left in the country would be satisfied with the sloppy seconds the Islamists leave if they are allowed the facade of power.
Groups like the ACLU are very selective about the liberties they protect. They could care less about 2nd amendment rights. But we are in this WOT mess because our liberties were taken away.
We once had the right to carry weapons anywhere. We once had freedom of association without being threatened with discrimination lawsuits.
But today the constraints that the Constitution applied to the government are reversed and the Constitution is now standing on its head.
For example, an airline crew ejected a group of Arabs who were taking a suspicious interest in the cockpit door latch before the flight. But the airline was sued for this act of racial profiling.
If we are reduced to acting like sheep they are going to cut our throats.
Why don't you at least make an attempt to address the issue?
Liberals think that Islamists are useful idiots.
Islamists think the same thing about liberals.
Only one group is prepared to act though.
That's ridiculous. Win and remain the great, free nation we are.
Nor did President Bush break the law. A leftist making an accusation does not make it so.
Go sit in a cafe' in Israel, Bali, Darfur, and when the ball bearings and nails start to fly into your flesh, ripping apart men, women, and children spout that. I personally would rather make the enemy die for his belief, and stay alive.
Jeff
Do you honestly believe that the Islamo-fascists are capable of conquering the U.S.?
Interesting first post.
Welcome and good luck.
Yes.
Selective opinion? I'm not selective about it.
If you could truly achieve one goal by removing emphasis from the other, then the least free states would be the most secure, and the most free would be on the brink of collapse, right?Let's take nine of the countries that recently received the highest score (1) from Freedom House's annual survey of global civil liberties: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Mauritius, Taiwan, the United States, Uruguay.
Now let's take the nine countries that received the lowest score of 7: Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan. I dunno, which group looks more "secure" to you?
...
I would suggest that a fella can believe with perfect sincerity -- even without succumbing to libertarian panic -- that liberty and security are complementary, not mutually exclusive. The proverbial "challenge in the coming debate," or at least one of them, is to re-insert that idea back on the table when the Wise Men decide which Founding Principle to ignore next.
.
After the Fall of Freedom in Vietnam 30 years ago, exactly, came...
Pictures of a vietnamese Re-Education Camp
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts
Having to flee Saigon, Vietnam in a hurry, as Freedom was falling there, a 10 year old little boy named VAN TRAN came to America with his family with just the shirts on their backs...
...speaking only 2 words of English.
VAN TRAN is now the 1st Vietnamese=American to become a State Legislator in United States History. He has learned much in the decades long process of getting there. And has much to share in this new time of war with our own Freedom directly at stake here at home...
Tran Blast Dean: Calls for Solidarity in Iraq
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1536289/posts
.
In my opinion, the same thing holds true for terrorist. You know your enemy by the cut of their cloth.
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.