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.
Yeah, I got it. And you said what you said very well.
Visit the Threat Matrix thread. Know what your talking about before you open your mouth.
There's "less respect for our rights now than at any time in history."? Really? Is that why, during WW I, American citizens, who had been born here, many of whom were second and third generation American citizens, but who had German/Austrian/Hungarian last names, were set upon, hounded out of business,and/or spied upon?
I just bet that the Americans, of Japanese heritage, during WW II, are just lining up to agree with you on the "rights" thingy...some Germans too. LOL
Fifty years ago, most people were patriotic; but that bit the dust, due to many different reasons, not the least of which was what happened in the mid 1960s. There had been card carrying Commies in education for many years (David Horowitz's parents and their friends, for example ), as well as ardent lefties/fellow travelers for decades, prior to the '60s, but not as many as today. What changed abruptly, in the '60s, was not only unionization, but the fact the many males went into teaching, to avoid the draft. And then there was the fact that being anti-war and anti-American became sort of "chic" and accepted.
But if we take a look at earlier times, say in the late 1920s and during the '30s, "progressive" education was also taking hold. So there was already a cadre of lefties, who by the late '60s, had a strong toehold in academe. That made it easier for the takeover several decades later.
Going back even farther into the past, the groundwork had been laid by John Dewey and his group at Columbia's Teacher's College subdivision.
Once all of this came together, the brainwashing of subsequent generations was easy.
The heads of the original movie studios were VERY patriotic. What you take for granted, as the "American Dream" and how you think of America, was, in actuality, not only fostered by these men, but codified and expanded and then fed back to the populace. Once the studio system began to fail, that too was over.
But all of that is relatively recent history. If we go back still father, what you mean by "RIGHTS" and respect for same, isn't really all that true. Many different groups, from the KNOW NOTHINGS to the KKK to the Wobblies, all wanted to deny others the RIGHTS that they were due. They had NO "respect" for RIGHTS or "liberty" for everyone; just for themselves.
Oh yes, and spying on civilians is also NOTHING new at all, during wartime. Try reading some contemporaneously written newspaper articles and books, from times past...you'll broaden your understanding.
The war has been lost to the Conservative Moslem's. When the election returns are counted we will be asked to leave Iraq. The administration got its free election alright.
Saddam's out of the picture, and most Iraqi's have a blood feud with Iran.
You have probably told the truth with that statement, because if we don't win this war....you won't have a head with which to utilize that fashion statement.
But I paid my Gremlim Protection Officer my monthly fee. They aren't supposed to bother me until next month.
conservativehoney - Well said Excellent post.
Disturbing that there ARE some who are either too selfish or too cowardly to require that the Executive branch just FOLLOW THE LAW established by the 1978 FISA that REQUIRES that ANY wiretaps made by a government agency be approved by the secret court set up to handle these situations.
pbrown - I don't think anyone is arguing that the president should not be allowed to listen in on suspected terrorists, within and without America, as long as he does it WITHIN THE LAW. Since the Administration apparently failed to ask for a warrant, even retroactively, a law may have been broken. In addition, since the FISA court was not consulted we simply DO NOT KNOW whether or not the NSA used this new authority to spy on our own citizens since we have no record of those wiretaps.
I agree that the Executive Branch(law enforcement) should have all the tools available to them to fight the war on terror, but not at the cost of Judicial and/or Congressional oversight (checks and balances). The Founders created three co-equal branches of government that are responsible for regulating (checking and balancing) each other. Without this regulation, dangerous abuses of power can and will result.
This is Government 101, folks. Doesn't anyone remember this stuff from school?
And just so you all know, I don't value my life, or any of yours for that matter, over the freedoms we have been blessed with by our Creator and outlined by the Founders.
All I know, is that I don't take kindly to anyone trying to get between me and my liberty..Terrorist or otherwise.. Also, when I was calling to you "friend" it isn't because I feel that you are my friend.. Go ask anyone that you know that has ever been involved in a bar brawl what "friend" means... When used in the manner that I did.. I certainly wasn't calling you a friend. I'm not "friendly" to anyone who tries to come between me and my liberty.. Got that, friend?
Really...When are they planning to invade..?? I'm not worried about losing my head until the invasion..Right now the best that they can do is a couple airplanes in a building and a field..I'll take my chances with my liberty intact..Thanks for your concern about my noggin though.. Cause it's becoming clear that many within my party have freaking lost theirs. How do we go from being such dominents to such wussies over night? We put on a brave face and beat down any demorat around, yet we cower at the thought of having to defend our country against Akmed?? What gives? What has caused the strong people in my party to fold like whimpering children?? What happened to give me liberty or give me death?? Where have all the cowboys gone??
What about the right to carry weapons on airlines?
It might be suggested that might be a little late to start the worrying process!! But of course you have all the answers....and the folks who wear diapers on their heads would be most interested in listening to the likes of you...for about 30 seconds...
It has been suggested that it is better to look stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt...
Weapons, Hell, how about nail clippers, mustache scissors, pocketknives, etc.
not really "weapons" in the classical sense of guns, bats, etc. more like things that could be used as a "shank" - prison style.
like any plane full of people would ever again let a bunch of maniacs with boxcutters hijack a plane and crash it into a building. what are they thinking confiscating these things?
They are thinking this is just another way to subjugate the American people. Treat them like high school students and get them accustomed to following orders.
This treatment will produce a very subservient class of travelers and should the terrorists get real weapons past the "screeners" (many of whom are Muslims) they won't have to worry about another flight 93 scenario.
Is that why you refuse to engage in rational debate?
"This treatment will produce a very subservient class of travelers and should the terrorists get real weapons past the "screeners" (many of whom are Muslims) they won't have to worry about another flight 93 scenario."
Well said. Therein lies the problem of gradual erosion of your rights - subservience, timidness, and apathy. Once that is achieved, it's easy for the rulers to make the ruled conform.
God, I love it when I hear talk like that.
(I would agree that paragraphs make a long post easier to read and a post as good as yours deserves to be read.)
Why some people think that you are willing to surrender is beyond me. You know that there are some things worth fighting and dying for, just as many have known that came before us.
I was visiting my mother at the nursing home a few hours ago and tonight's activity (in the Alzheimer's unit where she is) was a sing-along. Nothing has moved me so much in a long time. The songs varied from the old fun songs from the 40s and 50s to religious and patriotic ones. These dear old folks who can barely shuffle from one place to another, if they can stand or walk at all and don't know day from night and can't recognize their own children, belted out these songs with joy and pride.
When we sang "My Country, tis of thee" and "Battle Hymm of the Republic" and others, their mostly feeble voices got stronger and louder. Their chests puffed up with pride. Their heads were held a little higher.
And it struck me, the words weren't "My country, tis of thee, soft land of security. It was sweet land of LIBERTY. The statue in NY Harbor isn't the Statue of Safety, it's the Statue of LIBERTY. And it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Good Ideas Except When We're Scared.
Liberty. Liberty is what we have always cherished and erected monuments to. Liberty is what we sing about and what countless men and women have given their lives for. Liberty for their children and their neighbors and their neighbor's children. Liberty is what made this country great. Taking risks. Being bold. Going without a safety net. Making our own way. Sweet land of liberty. Liberty is sweet. It should be savored and protected, never squandered or given up lightly.
Fighting for liberty is what made us safe, not demanding that government keep us safe. Somewhere along the way, we've lost that spirit and it's not very becoming.
I might die. I might die from a car bomb too. Or I might die from a terrorist sniper. So how about random searches on the street?
How much authority will you give the government to chase these guys down? Would you suspend the entire bill of rights? Would you allow the government to keep a dossier on anyone and everyone?
But why would you think our ham-handed government is competent to defend us against such a thing as a nuke in spite of all the evidence. They had tons of Arabic communication intercepts but only about two or three Arabic speaking interpreters to process it. They knew who Mohammad Atta was when he was in the country, but the intelligence agencies were forbidden to talk to each other.
The point I've been trying to make here on this thread is that more liberty equals more security. That's what it says in the second amendment. And I'm not just talking about gun rights.
Today, people and corporations are so beaten down by discrimination lawsuits that they are inhibited from using good judgment. Remember the flight school that admitted a middle-eastern guy who only wanted to fly, not to land or take off? They should have kicked him out in the street immediately. But you can't do that these days.
Think in terms of giving citizens the same rights that you want to give to the NSA. Think of your fellow citizen as an ally with the government in the war on crime, terror and corruption rather than helpless sheep. Whistle blowers like Linda Tripp should be allowed to record conversations without being charged with a crime. Corporations should be allowed to exchange information with each other if they suspect terrorist activities without being sued for violating privacy rights.
The chances that you or I will ever meet a terrorist face to face is minimal but the chances that a terrorist in the US will meet a US citizen is 100%. Major crimes and terrorist acts have been thwarted by private citizens but somehow that fact tends to be screened out by the PC filter in some people's minds.
One thing we know about Islamic terrorists is that they aren't very smart and they are lousy actors. We often find dozens of people, clerks at ticket counters, who had looked them in the eye, gotten a chill down their spine, but did nothing. I suspect they did nothing out a personal fear of being branded as paranoid or a bigot or a xenophobe. If we can fight this fear, and if we take and active role, we can fight terrorism.
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.