Anwar al-Awlaki's death has stirred an interesting debate. Can we celebrate his departure as one less al-Qaeda operative? Or, should we lament the killing of an American citizen abroad as another step on the slippery slope toward domestic tyranny?
The slippery slope argument doesn't lack precedent. Governments are notorious for targeting their own citizens. Nazi Germany systematically eliminated Jewish citizens, Stalin's Soviet Union imposed a famine on Ukraine, and Chairman Moa oversaw millions of Chinese deaths. Just this year Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Libya have trained government guns on their own people, killing them without trial. There's no denying the dangers of a government that recognizes no bounds.
However, the Constitution's Fifth Amendment forces our government to recognize boundaries, specifically that no one can be deprived of life without due process. So, how does the Fifth Amendment square with Awlaki's death? Despite living in Yemen, Awlaki was American born and a U.S. citizen. Does his death establish the assassination of American citizens as standard federal procedure? One such death certainly doesn't place our government on par with history's most brutal regimes. But there are questions. Liberties and safeguards lost or surrendered are seldom regained.
Awlaki was an inflammatory critic of the United States. If he can be denied due process and killed because government leaders don't approve of his positions, could it lead to other Americans becoming government targets? If so, we're in grave danger. Pro-life activists and Second Amendment purists could be declared enemies of the state. Advocates for state's rights and a limited federal government would surely run afoul of the central authority. Should they be eliminated?
Anwar al-Awlaki's activities were certainly detestable. He was an al-Qaeda recruiter and jihad preacher who incited radicalism against the United States. But the Fifth Amendment question remains. Awlaki was an American citizen and his life was snuffed without due process of law. There've been other notorious Americans -- Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and the Unabomber -- who weren't killed without trial. What makes Awlaki different from them?
American citizens retain their constitutional protections whether they're home or abroad. Numerous Americans have engaged in questionable activities while overseas, including former President Jimmy Carter. None became missile targets. In fact, not even al-Qaeda operatives in the United States have been denied due process, as Awlaki allegedly was. Two Minnesota women suspected of raising funds and recruiting fighters for the Somali jihad group al-Shabab were recently arrested, not bombed.
However, one key factor has thus far been ignored. One of the central government's fundamental functions is to address threats to the citizenry. If government lacks either the ability or the will to defend the nation it cannot maintain the security necessary for liberty to flourish. Therefore, common sense establishes a line beyond which threats to security must be eliminated, even when posed by U.S. citizens. Anwar al-Awlaki crossed that line.
There are stark differences between mere rabble-rousers and someone like Awlaki. The fact that Awlaki left the United States doesn't mark him for death. But he left his country for a region where a recognized enemy is known to reside for the purpose of joining and aiding their cause. Essentially, Awlaki chose to become an enemy fighter.
Awlaki actively recruited al-Qaeda operatives with his radical doctrines and sermons. His résumé includes the Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Bomber, and the failed Times Square bomb plot. No doubt a rouge government could manipulate evidence to cast suspicions on someone it would prefer to eliminate. But there's no need for cloak and dagger conspiracies in Awlaki's case. His decision to become a foreign enemy made him a legitimate target.
Anwar al-Awlaki's fiery departure didn't compromise our Fifth Amendment right to due process. The deaths of Randy Weaver's wife and David Koresh at the hands of federal authorities were much more troublesome to the cause of liberty than Awlaki's.
The dividing line between an imaginary enemy of the state, someone targeted solely for speech or activities the state doesn't approve, and a genuine enemy of the nation is quite clear. If we fail to see that truth it's simply because we choose to ignore it.
Debating the strategic value in Awlaki's death is an endless argument. But he wasn't killed because he didn't blindly support the federal government. He wasn't killed because he criticized America's foreign or domestic policies, or because his religion was strange, or because he was a quirky hermit on a mountaintop. Awlaki was killed because he left his country to voluntarily join an identified enemy whose hostilities toward the United States are well-documented. He was a legitimate target and the Fifth Amendment needn't shed a tear at his wake.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Obama's "gutsy" no-brainer
President Obama made the correct decision in sending Navy SEALs into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. But was it the "gutsy call" the media, and the administration itself, has led us to believe? Logically and politically the President had no alternative.
Little courage is required to condemn a man directly responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. No man in recent history has deserved U.S. retribution more than Osama bin Laden. Once the al-Qaeda leader's whereabouts were confirmed there was no decision to make. Any post-9/11 President who held bin Laden in his crosshairs and failed to fire would instantly become the greatest failure in presidential history. Obama received an approval ratings bounce, as would be expected. But the decision that precipitated that bounce was a no-brainer. As more Americans examine the situation, especially in light of the conflicting accounts emanating from the White House, they will realize that Obama had no option aside from the course he chose.
Imagine the political fallout had Obama forsaken the opportunity to take bin Laden. News of such magnitude wouldn't have remained a secret, not even with a compliant media. Had Obama wavered on taking bin Laden his 2012 goose would've been cooked. His indecisiveness and tepidness would be confirmed. Furthermore, inaction would've fueled the Obama-is-a-Muslim theories. Had Obama knowingly allowed Osama bin Laden to escape he would've been lucky to carry the Haight-Ashbury and Greenwich Village precincts in his reelection bid.
Capturing bin Laden wasn't an option either. Obama couldn't send the al-Qaeda captain to Guantanamo, a black ops interrogation center, or subject him to anything other than normal criminal proceedings without expressing profound hypocrisy. Imagine Osama bin Laden on trial near Ground Zero, before a jury of Council on American-Islamic Relations peers, with an ACLU lawyer at his side. No, capture (though preferable in terms of intelligence) wasn't a political option. Osama had to die.
Make no mistake; President Obama issued the appropriate order. His decision to attack bin Laden directly, rather than with missiles or air strikes, would've been correct even if the mission had proved unsuccessful. But in reality, his order to kill Osama bin Laden was an easy call. Who among us wouldn't love to have issued the "Go!" command to SEAL Team Six?
A "gutsy" call? Only if you believe shooting down Admiral Yamamoto's plane during World War II was a difficult choice. "Gutsy" is the media's latest catchphrase, strategically repeated to promote an Obama foreign policy achievement. Frankly, his decision was one every American should expect from any President, regardless their party or ideology.
Recognize Obama for acting presidential. But "gutsy" describes Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. "Gutsy" describes the Navy SEALs and pilots who entered Pakistan and made this mission work. They are the heroes worthy of high praise. Gutsiness comes easier when safe at the White House surrounded by the Secret Service.
Little courage is required to condemn a man directly responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. No man in recent history has deserved U.S. retribution more than Osama bin Laden. Once the al-Qaeda leader's whereabouts were confirmed there was no decision to make. Any post-9/11 President who held bin Laden in his crosshairs and failed to fire would instantly become the greatest failure in presidential history. Obama received an approval ratings bounce, as would be expected. But the decision that precipitated that bounce was a no-brainer. As more Americans examine the situation, especially in light of the conflicting accounts emanating from the White House, they will realize that Obama had no option aside from the course he chose.
Imagine the political fallout had Obama forsaken the opportunity to take bin Laden. News of such magnitude wouldn't have remained a secret, not even with a compliant media. Had Obama wavered on taking bin Laden his 2012 goose would've been cooked. His indecisiveness and tepidness would be confirmed. Furthermore, inaction would've fueled the Obama-is-a-Muslim theories. Had Obama knowingly allowed Osama bin Laden to escape he would've been lucky to carry the Haight-Ashbury and Greenwich Village precincts in his reelection bid.
Capturing bin Laden wasn't an option either. Obama couldn't send the al-Qaeda captain to Guantanamo, a black ops interrogation center, or subject him to anything other than normal criminal proceedings without expressing profound hypocrisy. Imagine Osama bin Laden on trial near Ground Zero, before a jury of Council on American-Islamic Relations peers, with an ACLU lawyer at his side. No, capture (though preferable in terms of intelligence) wasn't a political option. Osama had to die.
Make no mistake; President Obama issued the appropriate order. His decision to attack bin Laden directly, rather than with missiles or air strikes, would've been correct even if the mission had proved unsuccessful. But in reality, his order to kill Osama bin Laden was an easy call. Who among us wouldn't love to have issued the "Go!" command to SEAL Team Six?
A "gutsy" call? Only if you believe shooting down Admiral Yamamoto's plane during World War II was a difficult choice. "Gutsy" is the media's latest catchphrase, strategically repeated to promote an Obama foreign policy achievement. Frankly, his decision was one every American should expect from any President, regardless their party or ideology.
Recognize Obama for acting presidential. But "gutsy" describes Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. "Gutsy" describes the Navy SEALs and pilots who entered Pakistan and made this mission work. They are the heroes worthy of high praise. Gutsiness comes easier when safe at the White House surrounded by the Secret Service.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Let the U.S. puts its best breast forward
There’s an old adage common to rural America: He comes around with his hat in his hand. It means that one person has granted deference to another. When the subservient person meets the one who’s considered superior the hat is removed in recognition of that status. That adage can apply to relationships between entities and nations, too.
America certainly takes the “hat in hand” approach to dealing with the Islamic theocracy in Iran. But we must alter the classic phrase to properly recognize the moment. Instead, America comes around Iran with our breasts in baggy t-shirts and our legs concealed.
Well, how would you explain it? When the U.S. met Iran at the World Basketball Championships the American cheerleaders were required to tone down their normally skimpy outfits. Organizers said it was a “nod to Muslim law.” I say it was a nod to politically correct cowardice. Frankly, I’m more than tired of catering to “Muslim law” and Iran’s delicate sensibilities.
Make no mistake, if Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists expressed offense at the cheerleaders’ (un)dress code they would be met with howls of protest and accused of harboring repressive attitudes toward both women and sexuality. Prudes and religious zealots they would be called. Each charge, every last one, would come from the same ideological nut tree that bends to every hot breeze emanating from the truly repressive, sexist, Islamic states.
I’ll admit that American cheerleaders often dress in a way that makes a Frederick’s of Hollywood catalog look like a high school yearbook. Yes, we could stand to tone down some of those outfits just a wee bit, at least to the point where they’re suitable for the local strip club. But this isn’t the time, not if done to appease Iran and Islamic law.
Iran’s ruling cabal of asinine ayatollahs, maniacal mullahs, insolent imams and crazed clerics have despised everything to do with the United States since the days of the Shah. Iran considers stoning a normal form of capital punishment and treats women like livestock. They are a state sponsor of Islamic radicals ranging from rocket wielding jihadists to suicide bombers, and Hezbollah is a de facto wing of the Iranian army. Why should America cater to Iran as if their culture has achieved some higher plane of moral superiority?
In this case I say less is more. If cheerleaders appear at future U.S.-Iran sporting events they should do so in their entire decadent Western glory. Instead of covering up, let’s redefine the word “skimpy.” Our "hotties" should be encouraged to flaunt their forms in a fashion that will leave Nevada madams blushing like schoolgirls. Outfit the cheerleaders with micro-thongs, give each a shiny silver pole and crank up the neon.
Dance ladies! Spin, twirl and dance some more. Dance your pretty little hearts out. And what if the offended Iranian rulers storm out of the arena? Well, don’t let the door hit you in the bisht on the way out!
America certainly takes the “hat in hand” approach to dealing with the Islamic theocracy in Iran. But we must alter the classic phrase to properly recognize the moment. Instead, America comes around Iran with our breasts in baggy t-shirts and our legs concealed.
Well, how would you explain it? When the U.S. met Iran at the World Basketball Championships the American cheerleaders were required to tone down their normally skimpy outfits. Organizers said it was a “nod to Muslim law.” I say it was a nod to politically correct cowardice. Frankly, I’m more than tired of catering to “Muslim law” and Iran’s delicate sensibilities.
Make no mistake, if Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists expressed offense at the cheerleaders’ (un)dress code they would be met with howls of protest and accused of harboring repressive attitudes toward both women and sexuality. Prudes and religious zealots they would be called. Each charge, every last one, would come from the same ideological nut tree that bends to every hot breeze emanating from the truly repressive, sexist, Islamic states.
I’ll admit that American cheerleaders often dress in a way that makes a Frederick’s of Hollywood catalog look like a high school yearbook. Yes, we could stand to tone down some of those outfits just a wee bit, at least to the point where they’re suitable for the local strip club. But this isn’t the time, not if done to appease Iran and Islamic law.
Iran’s ruling cabal of asinine ayatollahs, maniacal mullahs, insolent imams and crazed clerics have despised everything to do with the United States since the days of the Shah. Iran considers stoning a normal form of capital punishment and treats women like livestock. They are a state sponsor of Islamic radicals ranging from rocket wielding jihadists to suicide bombers, and Hezbollah is a de facto wing of the Iranian army. Why should America cater to Iran as if their culture has achieved some higher plane of moral superiority?
In this case I say less is more. If cheerleaders appear at future U.S.-Iran sporting events they should do so in their entire decadent Western glory. Instead of covering up, let’s redefine the word “skimpy.” Our "hotties" should be encouraged to flaunt their forms in a fashion that will leave Nevada madams blushing like schoolgirls. Outfit the cheerleaders with micro-thongs, give each a shiny silver pole and crank up the neon.
Dance ladies! Spin, twirl and dance some more. Dance your pretty little hearts out. And what if the offended Iranian rulers storm out of the arena? Well, don’t let the door hit you in the bisht on the way out!
Saturday, September 11, 2010
What might 9/11 sound like in the future?
Few stones are left unturned in the debate over the Ground Zero mosque. I’ve tipped a few of those stones myself. But there remains one stone that, to my knowledge, has been left undisturbed. I discovered this stone today (tripped over it actually), on the anniversary of al-Qaeda’s greatest strike to date against their “great Satan.”
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s building near Ground Zero will house more than a mosque; that much is true. But let there be no question, it will house a mosque. And where there is a mosque there is the adhan, the Muslim call to prayer. The adhan will sound from Rauf’s mosque five times each day, meaning that the Muslim call to Islamic prayer will reverberate around the World Trade Center site on a daily basis, and be heard quite clear. But that isn’t the worst part.
Each 9/11, on each anniversary of the attack on our homeland, while the names of the dead are recalled and the nation remembers, the Muslim call to prayer will be heard at Ground Zero. It will mingle with the solemn roll call of victims and the haunting memories of the burned and dying. The climactic event will come on September 11, 2015. That’s when 9/11’s anniversary next falls on a Friday, Islam’s holy day.
I’ve never felt the cold steel of a sword pierce my heart. But I can’t imagine it being much worse than hearing a Muslim incantation recited via loudspeaker at Ground Zero, on their holy day, on our 9/11.
Don’t think our shame will be private. Don’t think it will be lost on the Islamic world. They will see our solemn memorial yield to the tune of the adhan and they will be pleased. The much-feared “Muslim street” will rally in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and anywhere fanatical Muslims gather, rallying to laugh at Western Civilization’s “paper tiger” and jeer at our tolerance.
Are we so tolerant, America? Will we stand meekly, prideful in our open-mindedness, while radicalized Muslims trample our neighbor’s graves? Can we sit idly while Muslims blare their call to prayer on the very block where their brethren presented our countrymen as human sacrifices to the god toward whom they pray? Are we so weak and spineless?
I hope not, for all that is holy I hope not. For if we are prepared to tolerate such an insult we are doomed as a culture, relegated to the ashbin of bygone civilizations. Who could argue that we won’t deserve it?
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s building near Ground Zero will house more than a mosque; that much is true. But let there be no question, it will house a mosque. And where there is a mosque there is the adhan, the Muslim call to prayer. The adhan will sound from Rauf’s mosque five times each day, meaning that the Muslim call to Islamic prayer will reverberate around the World Trade Center site on a daily basis, and be heard quite clear. But that isn’t the worst part.
Each 9/11, on each anniversary of the attack on our homeland, while the names of the dead are recalled and the nation remembers, the Muslim call to prayer will be heard at Ground Zero. It will mingle with the solemn roll call of victims and the haunting memories of the burned and dying. The climactic event will come on September 11, 2015. That’s when 9/11’s anniversary next falls on a Friday, Islam’s holy day.
I’ve never felt the cold steel of a sword pierce my heart. But I can’t imagine it being much worse than hearing a Muslim incantation recited via loudspeaker at Ground Zero, on their holy day, on our 9/11.
Don’t think our shame will be private. Don’t think it will be lost on the Islamic world. They will see our solemn memorial yield to the tune of the adhan and they will be pleased. The much-feared “Muslim street” will rally in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and anywhere fanatical Muslims gather, rallying to laugh at Western Civilization’s “paper tiger” and jeer at our tolerance.
Are we so tolerant, America? Will we stand meekly, prideful in our open-mindedness, while radicalized Muslims trample our neighbor’s graves? Can we sit idly while Muslims blare their call to prayer on the very block where their brethren presented our countrymen as human sacrifices to the god toward whom they pray? Are we so weak and spineless?
I hope not, for all that is holy I hope not. For if we are prepared to tolerate such an insult we are doomed as a culture, relegated to the ashbin of bygone civilizations. Who could argue that we won’t deserve it?
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wow, didn’t see that one coming!
Palestinian kills 4 Israelis on eve of peace talks - Yahoo! News
Palestinian gunmen open fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle in the West Bank (Allah be praised). Four Israelis are killed (Allah be praised). Talk about déjà vu. The latest violence comes just as the United States launched a new round of peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Now that’s déjà vu all over again (sorry Yogi).
Violence on the eve of Middle East peace talks is about as difficult to see coming as a freight train on the Kansas prairie. It carries all the surprise of a stone sinking in still water or ice melting on a hot sidewalk. However, the Palestinian attack will shock someone. If it’s you, come forward and be recognized. It’s not everyday we have the opportunity to meet someone so amazed by normality.
A Hamas spokesman, quite predictably, praised the gunmen for their “heroic operation in Hebron,” for which Hamas has claimed credit. And Hamas didn’t celebrate their great victory over the dogs of Zion alone. Three thousand fellow Palestinian zealots rallied in Gaza to praise this courageous triumph (Allah be praised).
Heroism. Courage. I doubt that Hamas militants can as much as spell either word, much less define them.
Apologists will label this attack an isolated incident perpetrated by a radical fringe element. Yet Hamas and their allies are far from the fringe in Palestine. In fact, they’re as common to Gaza and the West Bank as are Southern Baptists to North Carolina. Would-be peace brokers, like Mahmoud Abbas, are the exception.
As for Abbas, he is fast becoming the “Uncle Tom” of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Factions within the PLO consider him weak and have threatened to depose him if he makes concessions to Israel. But how any rational Westerner has considered the PLO a peaceful group defies explanation.
In the years following the last “successful” Middle East peace agreement--the Declaration of Principles signed in Oslo in 1993--there have been at least 112 attacks carried out by various factions within the PLO. If Israel and the United States have a friend in the PLO, well, we’re up to our eyeballs in enemies.
The only people who can possibly claim shock at the deaths of four unarmed Israeli civilians at the hands of Palestinian cutthroats on the eve of peace talks are those who’ve had their heads buried in the Daily Kos.
Jews and Arabs have been at each others throats throughout their histories. A lasting peace between them is even less probable than between other colliding cultures and peoples. And when one side celebrates cowardly murderers as courageous heroes the chance for peace becomes as undesirable as it is unlikely.
Palestinian gunmen open fire on an unarmed, civilian vehicle in the West Bank (Allah be praised). Four Israelis are killed (Allah be praised). Talk about déjà vu. The latest violence comes just as the United States launched a new round of peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Now that’s déjà vu all over again (sorry Yogi).
Violence on the eve of Middle East peace talks is about as difficult to see coming as a freight train on the Kansas prairie. It carries all the surprise of a stone sinking in still water or ice melting on a hot sidewalk. However, the Palestinian attack will shock someone. If it’s you, come forward and be recognized. It’s not everyday we have the opportunity to meet someone so amazed by normality.
A Hamas spokesman, quite predictably, praised the gunmen for their “heroic operation in Hebron,” for which Hamas has claimed credit. And Hamas didn’t celebrate their great victory over the dogs of Zion alone. Three thousand fellow Palestinian zealots rallied in Gaza to praise this courageous triumph (Allah be praised).
Heroism. Courage. I doubt that Hamas militants can as much as spell either word, much less define them.
Apologists will label this attack an isolated incident perpetrated by a radical fringe element. Yet Hamas and their allies are far from the fringe in Palestine. In fact, they’re as common to Gaza and the West Bank as are Southern Baptists to North Carolina. Would-be peace brokers, like Mahmoud Abbas, are the exception.
As for Abbas, he is fast becoming the “Uncle Tom” of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Factions within the PLO consider him weak and have threatened to depose him if he makes concessions to Israel. But how any rational Westerner has considered the PLO a peaceful group defies explanation.
In the years following the last “successful” Middle East peace agreement--the Declaration of Principles signed in Oslo in 1993--there have been at least 112 attacks carried out by various factions within the PLO. If Israel and the United States have a friend in the PLO, well, we’re up to our eyeballs in enemies.
The only people who can possibly claim shock at the deaths of four unarmed Israeli civilians at the hands of Palestinian cutthroats on the eve of peace talks are those who’ve had their heads buried in the Daily Kos.
Jews and Arabs have been at each others throats throughout their histories. A lasting peace between them is even less probable than between other colliding cultures and peoples. And when one side celebrates cowardly murderers as courageous heroes the chance for peace becomes as undesirable as it is unlikely.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Placing the mosque on the other foot
The Ground Zero Mosque has generated a commentarial swirl commensurate to the controversy over its location. Central to that debate is the religious element. Mosque opponents, regardless of their motivations, are accused of bigotry based on religious preference, primarily Christianity. But those charges are inapplicable.
Governments can legitimately recognize cultural norms through the honoring of religious expressions. However, unless a person worships government they won’t need government to defend their god. Furthermore, when a religion seeks government’s endorsement to legitimize their religious loyalties their worship has been compromised. This is true of any religion, especially Christianity, which is more a faith than a religion.
The fact is that constructing a mosque in New York isn’t what generated the protests and opposition. There are 100 mosques in New York City right now and thousands more across the United States. None sparked the outrage that the planned Cordoba Mosque and Islamic Cultural Center has created. It’s not the building; it’s the location, plain and simple.
The propriety of a mosque near the World Trade Center site has been sufficiently addressed and rebuffed. Ample polling data exists to prove that mosque opponents are mainstream Americans, not the bigoted “Islamophobes” the left portrays. Claiming otherwise is sheer political spin.
However, an interesting element that’s received scant attention is the left’s sudden willingness to defend religious liberty, a freedom for which they have great disdain under most circumstances. What if the controversy surrounded a different house of worship, at a different site? Would the left and their media allies be so supportive of religious freedom then? Doubtful.
Enter Matthew Shepard, the homosexual man who was robbed, beaten and tied to a fence outside Laramie, Wyoming in October, 1998. He died a few days later, becoming a symbol of homophobia and a rallying cry for gay activists. The fact that money and drugs, not homosexuality, motivated Shepard’s murderers didn’t matter. He remained a focal point for gay activists . . . and a target for Fred Phelps.
Phelps leads the Westboro Church in Topeka, Kansas. He and his group are infamous for protesting funerals and carrying “God hates fags” signs. Now suppose Phelps and his congregation decided to construct a church--under the guise of building a bridge to the gay community--across the road from where Matthew Shepard’s body was found?
The same leftists who decry intolerance among Ground Zero Mosque opponents would condemn Phelps’ plans. In fact, I’ll wager that leftists would spare no expense in halting construction. Why? For the same reasons Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.
The left would claim that a Phelps church near where Shepard died would exploit his memory and offend homosexuals. A Phelps congregation at that spot, the left would argue, would be insensitive and inappropriate. So why can’t mosque defenders see the reasons mosque opponents hold the opinions they hold?
Granted, Phelps is an authentic nutcase. But Feisal Abdul Rauf--who will lead the controversial mosque--has skeletons in his closet, too. He blames the United States, at least in part, for Islamic terrorism and for Muslim hostility toward the West. He refuses to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Plus, there is a much closer tie between violence and mainstream Islam than between Fred Phelps and mainstream Christianity.
And the debate doesn’t end with Phelps. If any Christian church that considers homosexuality immoral were to build near where Shepard was found there’s little doubt the left would protest, claiming the church’s opposition to homosexuality renders their presence inappropriate. But Christians didn’t plan, participate in, or celebrate Shepard’s death. Muslims around the world celebrated the collapse of the World Trade Center. The difference is distinct.
The left’s use of religious freedom to defend the Ground Zero Mosque is decidedly empty. In fact, it is reprehensible. They have no interest in defending Muslims’ religious liberties. Leftists are merely using Muslims and religious freedom to further their agenda, which is pro-anything that is anti-Western Civilization.
Governments can legitimately recognize cultural norms through the honoring of religious expressions. However, unless a person worships government they won’t need government to defend their god. Furthermore, when a religion seeks government’s endorsement to legitimize their religious loyalties their worship has been compromised. This is true of any religion, especially Christianity, which is more a faith than a religion.
The fact is that constructing a mosque in New York isn’t what generated the protests and opposition. There are 100 mosques in New York City right now and thousands more across the United States. None sparked the outrage that the planned Cordoba Mosque and Islamic Cultural Center has created. It’s not the building; it’s the location, plain and simple.
The propriety of a mosque near the World Trade Center site has been sufficiently addressed and rebuffed. Ample polling data exists to prove that mosque opponents are mainstream Americans, not the bigoted “Islamophobes” the left portrays. Claiming otherwise is sheer political spin.
However, an interesting element that’s received scant attention is the left’s sudden willingness to defend religious liberty, a freedom for which they have great disdain under most circumstances. What if the controversy surrounded a different house of worship, at a different site? Would the left and their media allies be so supportive of religious freedom then? Doubtful.
Enter Matthew Shepard, the homosexual man who was robbed, beaten and tied to a fence outside Laramie, Wyoming in October, 1998. He died a few days later, becoming a symbol of homophobia and a rallying cry for gay activists. The fact that money and drugs, not homosexuality, motivated Shepard’s murderers didn’t matter. He remained a focal point for gay activists . . . and a target for Fred Phelps.
Phelps leads the Westboro Church in Topeka, Kansas. He and his group are infamous for protesting funerals and carrying “God hates fags” signs. Now suppose Phelps and his congregation decided to construct a church--under the guise of building a bridge to the gay community--across the road from where Matthew Shepard’s body was found?
The same leftists who decry intolerance among Ground Zero Mosque opponents would condemn Phelps’ plans. In fact, I’ll wager that leftists would spare no expense in halting construction. Why? For the same reasons Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.
The left would claim that a Phelps church near where Shepard died would exploit his memory and offend homosexuals. A Phelps congregation at that spot, the left would argue, would be insensitive and inappropriate. So why can’t mosque defenders see the reasons mosque opponents hold the opinions they hold?
Granted, Phelps is an authentic nutcase. But Feisal Abdul Rauf--who will lead the controversial mosque--has skeletons in his closet, too. He blames the United States, at least in part, for Islamic terrorism and for Muslim hostility toward the West. He refuses to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Plus, there is a much closer tie between violence and mainstream Islam than between Fred Phelps and mainstream Christianity.
And the debate doesn’t end with Phelps. If any Christian church that considers homosexuality immoral were to build near where Shepard was found there’s little doubt the left would protest, claiming the church’s opposition to homosexuality renders their presence inappropriate. But Christians didn’t plan, participate in, or celebrate Shepard’s death. Muslims around the world celebrated the collapse of the World Trade Center. The difference is distinct.
The left’s use of religious freedom to defend the Ground Zero Mosque is decidedly empty. In fact, it is reprehensible. They have no interest in defending Muslims’ religious liberties. Leftists are merely using Muslims and religious freedom to further their agenda, which is pro-anything that is anti-Western Civilization.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Chris Varano, report to the sports department, please!
When it comes to pontificating on the contemporary political scene Chris Varano might make a pretty fair sports broadcaster. Sports broadcasting is, after all, the Dallas native and Texas Christian University sophomore’s major. As such, his next editorial for TCU’s online newspaper should touch on Brett Favre’s myriad retirements, leaving politics alone, lest he become another (God forbid) Keith Olbermann.
Varano believes opposition to the “ground zero mosque” is Islamophobia in the first-degree. And he quotes Al Franken--Minnesota’s dubiously elected, self-proclaimed expert on everything--to validate his claim. That Mr. Varano, is strike one. Citing Sen. Franken on serious matters is akin to heeding Terrell Owens’ advice on improving team chemistry.
Varano states, unequivocally, that the proposed--and already financially troubled--Islamic center in lower Manhattan is peaceful. “It is not going to (be) a training ground for terrorists or a symbol of victory on 9/11,” writes Varano.
So, Chris, is that a Namath-like guarantee? Can we sue you if you’re wrong? Remember, the flight school where Mohamed Atta and his box cutter chorus trained wasn’t known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism either. As for being a symbol of victory, how can America consider it otherwise? A mosque at the WTC is as much a sign of victory as the U.S. flag atop Mt. Suribachi. I doubt you’ll find the famed Iwo Jima photograph hanging in many Japanese living rooms.
Strike two!
The fact is that Chris, like most Regressive leftists, is a walking contradiction. He’s critical of “the American people” for “holding entire groups responsible for the actions . . . of a few.” Yet the phrase “the American people” is itself all-inclusive. The author has engaged in the stereotyping he claims to despise, blanketing all opposition to the “ground zero mosque” with the Islamophobia quilt.
Chris, think for a moment. Your head won’t explode, I promise. Can Americans be the Islamophobes you claim when there 100 mosques in New York City, and approximately 2000 nationwide, operating freely? Plus, if memory serves (it does, thank you) Islamic radicals orchestrated 9/11. They bombed the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, a Beirut barracks, a German nightclub and a jetliner in Lockerbie, Scotland. And that’s just for starters.
If the mosque in question is to be Islam’s olive branch to America, as its proponents claim, shouldn’t a less controversial sight be chosen? Conversely, a mosque near ground zero is perfect for poking America’s eye.
That’s strike three, sports broadcaster. You’re out! Yet I hope I’ve clarified why so many Americans oppose the “ground zero mosque.” It’s not that we’re murderous cannibals, desiring to kill, cook and eat every Muslim in the contiguous forty-eight states. We just never again want to wear the “paper tiger” badge.
Now, grant us a boon and concentrate on your sports broadcasting degree. Then, when you return to “Big D”, you can rail on Tony Romo’s latest interception and why the Texas Rangers won’t win in October. America can use good sports broadcasters. We need more Keith Olbermanns like we need relief pitchers with double-digit ERAs.
Varano believes opposition to the “ground zero mosque” is Islamophobia in the first-degree. And he quotes Al Franken--Minnesota’s dubiously elected, self-proclaimed expert on everything--to validate his claim. That Mr. Varano, is strike one. Citing Sen. Franken on serious matters is akin to heeding Terrell Owens’ advice on improving team chemistry.
Varano states, unequivocally, that the proposed--and already financially troubled--Islamic center in lower Manhattan is peaceful. “It is not going to (be) a training ground for terrorists or a symbol of victory on 9/11,” writes Varano.
So, Chris, is that a Namath-like guarantee? Can we sue you if you’re wrong? Remember, the flight school where Mohamed Atta and his box cutter chorus trained wasn’t known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism either. As for being a symbol of victory, how can America consider it otherwise? A mosque at the WTC is as much a sign of victory as the U.S. flag atop Mt. Suribachi. I doubt you’ll find the famed Iwo Jima photograph hanging in many Japanese living rooms.
Strike two!
The fact is that Chris, like most Regressive leftists, is a walking contradiction. He’s critical of “the American people” for “holding entire groups responsible for the actions . . . of a few.” Yet the phrase “the American people” is itself all-inclusive. The author has engaged in the stereotyping he claims to despise, blanketing all opposition to the “ground zero mosque” with the Islamophobia quilt.
Chris, think for a moment. Your head won’t explode, I promise. Can Americans be the Islamophobes you claim when there 100 mosques in New York City, and approximately 2000 nationwide, operating freely? Plus, if memory serves (it does, thank you) Islamic radicals orchestrated 9/11. They bombed the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, a Beirut barracks, a German nightclub and a jetliner in Lockerbie, Scotland. And that’s just for starters.
If the mosque in question is to be Islam’s olive branch to America, as its proponents claim, shouldn’t a less controversial sight be chosen? Conversely, a mosque near ground zero is perfect for poking America’s eye.
That’s strike three, sports broadcaster. You’re out! Yet I hope I’ve clarified why so many Americans oppose the “ground zero mosque.” It’s not that we’re murderous cannibals, desiring to kill, cook and eat every Muslim in the contiguous forty-eight states. We just never again want to wear the “paper tiger” badge.
Now, grant us a boon and concentrate on your sports broadcasting degree. Then, when you return to “Big D”, you can rail on Tony Romo’s latest interception and why the Texas Rangers won’t win in October. America can use good sports broadcasters. We need more Keith Olbermanns like we need relief pitchers with double-digit ERAs.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Political Correctness claims Franklin Graham
If there is to be a National Day of Prayer it shouldn’t become an exercise in politically correct nonsense. But when the Pentagon bowed to pressure from pro-Islamic groups and rescinded Rev. Franklin Graham’s invitation to speak, nonsense is exactly what the event became.
The opposition to the Graham invitation was vehement. A spokesman from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation called Graham “hideously Islamophobic.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said a Graham appearance was “completely inappropriate.”
Why the hostility toward Franklin Graham? Well, because the truth hurts. Graham had the gall to proclaim what many people think but are afraid to mention. He called Islam an evil practice, condemning Islam’s treatment of women and the indiscriminate use of violence to advance the Islamic agenda.
Graham offered this assessment after September 11, 2001. That was the day when 18 Muslim missionaries leveled the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon and killed nearly 3,000 of our neighbors.
What’s overlooked is that Graham didn’t belittle individual Muslims and has extended charitable assistance to Muslim areas. He simply claimed that a significant faction within Islam condones violence as a proselytizing tool. Islam has an extensive record to support Graham’s opinion.
You may recall the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Spurred by the Islamic Revolution that deposed the Shah, Iranian radicals seized the American embassy in Tehran. They took 66 hostages and held them for 444 days. Not to be outdone Hezbollah kidnapped 30 Americans in 1982. Several of those captives were killed and one survivor, Terry Anderson, remained a prisoner for more than six years.
The bloodshed and violence continued in 1983. Shiite fanatics exploded a truck bomb outside a barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines. A Navy diver was executed in 1985 after Hezbollah hijacked TWA flight 847. The Palestinian Liberation Front commandeered the cruise ship Achille Lauro, executing the wheelchair-bound Jewish-American Leon Klinghoffer. Klinghoffer’s body, wheelchair and all, was pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.
Libyan radicals joined the jihad, too. Libyans were involved in bombing the Rome and Vienna airports. Libyans bombed a West German nightclub where U.S. military personal often gathered. It was a Libyan bomb that ripped apart a Pan-Am 747 in midair, reigning debris on Lockerbie, Scotland. Muammar Gaddafi himself admitted Libya’s participation in Lockerbie, although fifteen years after the fact.
Al-Qaeda reared its head in 1993, detonating a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. Hezbollah, in 1996, used a truck bomb to bring down the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda again in Kenya and Tanzania, where 224 died and 4,500 were injured in attacks on the U.S. embassies. A small explosive-laden boat blew a gaping hole in the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors. Suicide bombers targeted American hotels in Jordan and car bombs killed 60 in Algeria. All were the work of Al-Qaeda.
A Muslim convert killed one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. With shouts of “Allahu Akbar” an Army doctor killed 13 American soldiers at Ft. Hood. The doctor had boasted to a neighbor that he would “do good work for God” on the day of his rampage.
Dozens of attacks and thousands dead at the hands of Muslims whose support comes from Islamic organizations and/or Islamic governments. Consider also the scores of brainwashed bombers who’ve targeted restaurants, bus stations and open-air markets throughout the Middle East. The common thread is the Islamic jihad against the infidels (that’s us) for the glory of Allah. Yet the Pentagon dismissed Franklin Graham so as not to offend Islam.
Something’s amiss here, and I think it’s our grasp on reality. If there’s to be a National Day of Prayer, maybe we should petition our Creator to open our eyes and restore our common sense.
This column originally posted at American Thinker.
The opposition to the Graham invitation was vehement. A spokesman from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation called Graham “hideously Islamophobic.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said a Graham appearance was “completely inappropriate.”
Why the hostility toward Franklin Graham? Well, because the truth hurts. Graham had the gall to proclaim what many people think but are afraid to mention. He called Islam an evil practice, condemning Islam’s treatment of women and the indiscriminate use of violence to advance the Islamic agenda.
Graham offered this assessment after September 11, 2001. That was the day when 18 Muslim missionaries leveled the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon and killed nearly 3,000 of our neighbors.
What’s overlooked is that Graham didn’t belittle individual Muslims and has extended charitable assistance to Muslim areas. He simply claimed that a significant faction within Islam condones violence as a proselytizing tool. Islam has an extensive record to support Graham’s opinion.
You may recall the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Spurred by the Islamic Revolution that deposed the Shah, Iranian radicals seized the American embassy in Tehran. They took 66 hostages and held them for 444 days. Not to be outdone Hezbollah kidnapped 30 Americans in 1982. Several of those captives were killed and one survivor, Terry Anderson, remained a prisoner for more than six years.
The bloodshed and violence continued in 1983. Shiite fanatics exploded a truck bomb outside a barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines. A Navy diver was executed in 1985 after Hezbollah hijacked TWA flight 847. The Palestinian Liberation Front commandeered the cruise ship Achille Lauro, executing the wheelchair-bound Jewish-American Leon Klinghoffer. Klinghoffer’s body, wheelchair and all, was pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.
Libyan radicals joined the jihad, too. Libyans were involved in bombing the Rome and Vienna airports. Libyans bombed a West German nightclub where U.S. military personal often gathered. It was a Libyan bomb that ripped apart a Pan-Am 747 in midair, reigning debris on Lockerbie, Scotland. Muammar Gaddafi himself admitted Libya’s participation in Lockerbie, although fifteen years after the fact.
Al-Qaeda reared its head in 1993, detonating a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. Hezbollah, in 1996, used a truck bomb to bring down the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda again in Kenya and Tanzania, where 224 died and 4,500 were injured in attacks on the U.S. embassies. A small explosive-laden boat blew a gaping hole in the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors. Suicide bombers targeted American hotels in Jordan and car bombs killed 60 in Algeria. All were the work of Al-Qaeda.
A Muslim convert killed one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. With shouts of “Allahu Akbar” an Army doctor killed 13 American soldiers at Ft. Hood. The doctor had boasted to a neighbor that he would “do good work for God” on the day of his rampage.
Dozens of attacks and thousands dead at the hands of Muslims whose support comes from Islamic organizations and/or Islamic governments. Consider also the scores of brainwashed bombers who’ve targeted restaurants, bus stations and open-air markets throughout the Middle East. The common thread is the Islamic jihad against the infidels (that’s us) for the glory of Allah. Yet the Pentagon dismissed Franklin Graham so as not to offend Islam.
Something’s amiss here, and I think it’s our grasp on reality. If there’s to be a National Day of Prayer, maybe we should petition our Creator to open our eyes and restore our common sense.
This column originally posted at American Thinker.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Political Correctness claims Franklin Graham
If there is to be a National Day of Prayer it shouldn’t become an exercise in politically correct nonsense. But when the Pentagon bowed to pressure from pro-Islamic groups and rescinded Rev. Franklin Graham’s invitation to speak, nonsense is exactly what the event became.
The opposition to the Graham invitation was vehement. A spokesman from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation called Graham “hideously Islamophobic.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said a Graham appearance was “completely inappropriate.”
Why the hostility toward Franklin Graham? Well, because the truth hurts. Graham had the gall to proclaim what many people think but are afraid to mention. He called Islam an evil practice, condemning Islam’s treatment of women and the indiscriminate use of violence to advance the Islamic agenda.
Graham offered this assessment after September 11, 2001. That was the day when 18 Muslim missionaries leveled the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon and killed nearly 3,000 of our neighbors.
What’s overlooked is that Graham didn’t belittle individual Muslims and has extended charitable assistance to Muslim areas. He simply claimed that a significant faction within Islam condones violence as a proselytizing tool. Islam has an extensive record to support Graham’s opinion.
You may recall the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Spurred by the Islamic Revolution that deposed the Shah, Iranian radicals seized the American embassy in Tehran. They took 66 hostages and held them for 444 days. Not to be outdone Hezbollah kidnapped 30 Americans in 1982. Several of those captives were killed and one survivor, Terry Anderson, remained a prisoner for more than six years.
The bloodshed and violence continued in 1983. Shiite fanatics exploded a truck bomb outside a barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines. A Navy diver was executed in 1985 after Hezbollah hijacked TWA flight 847. The Palestinian Liberation Front commandeered the cruise ship Achille Lauro, executing the wheelchair-bound Jewish-American Leon Klinghoffer. Klinghoffer’s body, wheelchair and all, was pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.
Libyan radicals joined the jihad, too. Libyans were involved in bombing the Rome and Vienna airports. Libyans bombed a West German nightclub where U.S. military personal often gathered. It was a Libyan bomb that ripped apart a Pan-Am 747 in midair, reigning debris on Lockerbie, Scotland. Muammar Gaddafi himself admitted Libya’s participation in Lockerbie, although fifteen years after the fact.
Al-Qaeda reared its head in 1993, detonating a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. Hezbollah, in 1996, used a truck bomb to bring down the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda again in Kenya and Tanzania, where 224 died and 4,500 were injured in attacks on the U.S. embassies. A small explosive-laden boat blew a gaping hole in the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors. Suicide bombers targeted American hotels in Jordan and car bombs killed 60 in Algeria. All were the work of Al-Qaeda.
A Muslim convert killed one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. With shouts of “Allahu Akbar” an Army doctor killed 13 American soldiers at Ft. Hood. The doctor had boasted to a neighbor that he would “do good work for God” on the day of his rampage.
Dozens of attacks and thousands dead at the hands of Muslims whose support comes from Islamic organizations and/or Islamic governments. Consider also the scores of brainwashed bombers who’ve targeted restaurants, bus stations and open-air markets throughout the Middle East. The common thread is the Islamic jihad against the infidels (that’s us) for the glory of Allah. Yet the Pentagon dismissed Franklin Graham so as not to offend Islam.
Something’s amiss here, and I think it’s our grasp on reality. If there’s to be a National Day of Prayer, maybe we should petition our Creator to open our eyes and restore our common sense.
This column originally posted at American Thinker.
The opposition to the Graham invitation was vehement. A spokesman from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation called Graham “hideously Islamophobic.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said a Graham appearance was “completely inappropriate.”
Why the hostility toward Franklin Graham? Well, because the truth hurts. Graham had the gall to proclaim what many people think but are afraid to mention. He called Islam an evil practice, condemning Islam’s treatment of women and the indiscriminate use of violence to advance the Islamic agenda.
Graham offered this assessment after September 11, 2001. That was the day when 18 Muslim missionaries leveled the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon and killed nearly 3,000 of our neighbors.
What’s overlooked is that Graham didn’t belittle individual Muslims and has extended charitable assistance to Muslim areas. He simply claimed that a significant faction within Islam condones violence as a proselytizing tool. Islam has an extensive record to support Graham’s opinion.
You may recall the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Spurred by the Islamic Revolution that deposed the Shah, Iranian radicals seized the American embassy in Tehran. They took 66 hostages and held them for 444 days. Not to be outdone Hezbollah kidnapped 30 Americans in 1982. Several of those captives were killed and one survivor, Terry Anderson, remained a prisoner for more than six years.
The bloodshed and violence continued in 1983. Shiite fanatics exploded a truck bomb outside a barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines. A Navy diver was executed in 1985 after Hezbollah hijacked TWA flight 847. The Palestinian Liberation Front commandeered the cruise ship Achille Lauro, executing the wheelchair-bound Jewish-American Leon Klinghoffer. Klinghoffer’s body, wheelchair and all, was pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.
Libyan radicals joined the jihad, too. Libyans were involved in bombing the Rome and Vienna airports. Libyans bombed a West German nightclub where U.S. military personal often gathered. It was a Libyan bomb that ripped apart a Pan-Am 747 in midair, reigning debris on Lockerbie, Scotland. Muammar Gaddafi himself admitted Libya’s participation in Lockerbie, although fifteen years after the fact.
Al-Qaeda reared its head in 1993, detonating a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. Hezbollah, in 1996, used a truck bomb to bring down the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda again in Kenya and Tanzania, where 224 died and 4,500 were injured in attacks on the U.S. embassies. A small explosive-laden boat blew a gaping hole in the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors. Suicide bombers targeted American hotels in Jordan and car bombs killed 60 in Algeria. All were the work of Al-Qaeda.
A Muslim convert killed one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting station in Arkansas. With shouts of “Allahu Akbar” an Army doctor killed 13 American soldiers at Ft. Hood. The doctor had boasted to a neighbor that he would “do good work for God” on the day of his rampage.
Dozens of attacks and thousands dead at the hands of Muslims whose support comes from Islamic organizations and/or Islamic governments. Consider also the scores of brainwashed bombers who’ve targeted restaurants, bus stations and open-air markets throughout the Middle East. The common thread is the Islamic jihad against the infidels (that’s us) for the glory of Allah. Yet the Pentagon dismissed Franklin Graham so as not to offend Islam.
Something’s amiss here, and I think it’s our grasp on reality. If there’s to be a National Day of Prayer, maybe we should petition our Creator to open our eyes and restore our common sense.
This column originally posted at American Thinker.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
When freedom succumbs to necessity
In December, 2009 the Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor of Sen. Lindsay Graham’s and Sen. Charles Schumer’s promise to resurrect comprehensive immigration reform. But where is their bill? Internet searches are fruitless and a review of THOMAS--the Library of Congress’ database of pending legislation--reveals nothing. Yet the bill must exist for it’s been discussed in reputable media outlets.
At the heart of immigration reform is a biometric national identification card. This card, according to a Wall Street Journal article, will carry imbedded personal information used to identify legal workers. The key word is “legal”. Sen. Schumer believes the best way to stop illegal immigration is to require legal citizens to register with the state (as if we aren’t already). What an insult, not only to our liberty but also to our intelligence.
Page 214, Section 274A(a)(7), of the House’s immigration reform bill (H.R. 4321) forbids creating a national ID card. Apparently no such protection exists in the clandestine Graham-Schumer proposal. Perhaps, like the healthcare reform bill, it must be passed before anyone can know how it reads. Anyway, it seems that every American worker will be required to obtain the biometric ID card. Doesn’t that sound a bit Soviet? Present your papers, comrade!
A biometric ID will, like all infringements on our liberty, be sold as a necessity. Frankly, legitimate government has no authority to sacrifice liberty on the altar of some ill-defined greater good. As William Pitt said of necessity, “It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
Why should American citizens be forced to prove our innocence in order to work while illegal aliens are granted amnesty? There must be a better alternative to controlling illegal immigration than an invasive ID card. Halting welfare payments, food stamps, free education and non-emergency healthcare for illegal aliens comes to mind. But these ideas only make sense if stopping illegal immigration is the Graham-Schumer purpose, which is doubtful.
Immigration isn’t the only area in which Americans are told to relinquish liberty because the government lacks the will and courage to perform its duties.
Look at air travel since 9/11. Six imams sue an airline, and their fellow passengers, because the imams themselves behaved suspiciously. A suicidal bomber conceals explosives in his underwear and our government won’t even identify him as a Muslim. Thus we must remove our shoes in airports, face strip searches and submit to full body scans so Islam isn’t offended. Shampoo, nail clippers and knitting needles become weapons of mass destruction. It’s a necessity.
Another example lies in the right to bear arms. Innocence must be proven before government allows Americans to buy guns. We must prove our innocence to carry concealed weapons. Yet the thugs who are arrested for violent gun crimes sport rap sheets longer than War and Peace.
Criminals are criminals because they could care less about legality. They aren’t concerned with government approval. Criminals just act. Yet the lawful must allow their assailant sufficient opportunity to retreat or face possible prosecution from the same government that paroled the violent convict.
The entire outlook is backwards. Government confronts lawlessness and violence with greater restrictions on the blameless. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion the prisons will someday be filled with the virtuous while the malevolent roam free. It’s a necessity.
Government’s failure to address crime results in the erosion of self-defense and Second Amendment rights. Government’s failure to identify enemies results in massive inconvenience and loss of privacy for American citizens. Now government’s failed border security means innocence must be proven in order to work and we should consider it a necessity? No thanks!
Originally published at: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/when_freedom_succumbs_to_neces.html
At the heart of immigration reform is a biometric national identification card. This card, according to a Wall Street Journal article, will carry imbedded personal information used to identify legal workers. The key word is “legal”. Sen. Schumer believes the best way to stop illegal immigration is to require legal citizens to register with the state (as if we aren’t already). What an insult, not only to our liberty but also to our intelligence.
Page 214, Section 274A(a)(7), of the House’s immigration reform bill (H.R. 4321) forbids creating a national ID card. Apparently no such protection exists in the clandestine Graham-Schumer proposal. Perhaps, like the healthcare reform bill, it must be passed before anyone can know how it reads. Anyway, it seems that every American worker will be required to obtain the biometric ID card. Doesn’t that sound a bit Soviet? Present your papers, comrade!
A biometric ID will, like all infringements on our liberty, be sold as a necessity. Frankly, legitimate government has no authority to sacrifice liberty on the altar of some ill-defined greater good. As William Pitt said of necessity, “It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
Why should American citizens be forced to prove our innocence in order to work while illegal aliens are granted amnesty? There must be a better alternative to controlling illegal immigration than an invasive ID card. Halting welfare payments, food stamps, free education and non-emergency healthcare for illegal aliens comes to mind. But these ideas only make sense if stopping illegal immigration is the Graham-Schumer purpose, which is doubtful.
Immigration isn’t the only area in which Americans are told to relinquish liberty because the government lacks the will and courage to perform its duties.
Look at air travel since 9/11. Six imams sue an airline, and their fellow passengers, because the imams themselves behaved suspiciously. A suicidal bomber conceals explosives in his underwear and our government won’t even identify him as a Muslim. Thus we must remove our shoes in airports, face strip searches and submit to full body scans so Islam isn’t offended. Shampoo, nail clippers and knitting needles become weapons of mass destruction. It’s a necessity.
Another example lies in the right to bear arms. Innocence must be proven before government allows Americans to buy guns. We must prove our innocence to carry concealed weapons. Yet the thugs who are arrested for violent gun crimes sport rap sheets longer than War and Peace.
Criminals are criminals because they could care less about legality. They aren’t concerned with government approval. Criminals just act. Yet the lawful must allow their assailant sufficient opportunity to retreat or face possible prosecution from the same government that paroled the violent convict.
The entire outlook is backwards. Government confronts lawlessness and violence with greater restrictions on the blameless. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion the prisons will someday be filled with the virtuous while the malevolent roam free. It’s a necessity.
Government’s failure to address crime results in the erosion of self-defense and Second Amendment rights. Government’s failure to identify enemies results in massive inconvenience and loss of privacy for American citizens. Now government’s failed border security means innocence must be proven in order to work and we should consider it a necessity? No thanks!
Originally published at: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/when_freedom_succumbs_to_neces.html
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
We’d better jump to conclusions before it’s too late
Maybe it’s time to withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan after all. It’s obvious that our government has no intention of winning the “war on terror.” Not only are we afraid to allow our soldiers to kill our enemies, we won’t even identify our enemies.
Is it so hard to admit that we’re at war with Muslims who’ve deemed it their divine mission to convert or kill infidels? So what if only one-percent are violent radicals? That accounts for millions of radical Muslims worldwide. Even the non-radicals have given tacit endorsement to the nutcases.
What’s worse, our enemy isn’t on the other side of the globe; it’s within the military establishment that’s supposed to fight against them. Thirteen flag-draped coffins prove this point. What is our reaction? We won’t even call the Fort Hood attack what it was.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a “peaceful” Muslim, attacked his fellow soldiers, who were unarmed. Forty were wounded and thirteen killed. Now we’re told that we don’t know Hasan’s motivation for turning Fort Hood into a shooting gallery? Please!
Hasan once attended a mosque led by Anwari al-Awlaki and frequented by three of the 9/11 hijackers. Anwari himself is known to support terrorist organizations. Even now, from his current home in Yemen, he uses the Internet to spread Muslim fanaticism. Hasan, it’s said, has a deep-rooted respect for al-Awlaki.
But does the fact that Hasan worshipped in a radical mosque mean that he shared al-Awlaki’s views? Our course not. Our president sat in Jeremiah Wright’s loony bin for 20 years and didn’t hear a single sermon. Let’s not jump to conclusions.
As an army psychiatrist Hasan was charged with helping our troops adjust after concluding their combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet he had become a vehement critic of both wars. He defended suicide bombers and considered our retaliation for Islam’s attacks on us to be a war against Islam. Hasan once told colleagues at Walter Reed than non-Muslims should be set on fire, beheaded and have boiling oil poured down our throats.
But let’s not jump to conclusions.
Just before attacking Ft. Hood Hasan gave his neighbor a Koran and promised, “I’m going to do good work for god.” He was known to use his doctor/patient privilege to spread Islam and encouraged Muslims to rise up against America. He shouted “Allahu Akhbar” as he began his assault.
But let’s not jump to conclusions.
Despite evidence to Hasan’s attitude our main concern appears to be for other Muslims in the armed forces. We can’t have anti-Muslim backlash. We don’t want Muslims offended, or even suspected. It would harm our military diversity. But there’s a solution for any Muslim who might fear retaliation--get out of our military! How can any US soldier be confident that the Muslim beside him isn’t the next Major Hasan, or the next jihad warrior to roll a grenade into a crowded tent?
Call Hasan whatever you want. Call him a terrorist if you like. I call him a treasonous infiltrator and saboteur; a man worthy of death. Oddly, I hope he survives so he can face court martial and execution.
Why are we so concerned with what the “Muslim world” thinks? Muslims aren’t at all concerned with what we think. Frankly, I could care less about offending Muslims or their blood-drenched, bomb-scarred, suicidal religion. Having Muslims in our military at this point in our nation’s history is akin to accepting Soviet enlistees during the Cold War. It’s nonsense to think one’s enemies can play an integral part in one’s defense.
Our “leaders” are blind guides, lacking the foresight and courage to even identify our enemies, much less fight them. Why send troops to confront an enemy they aren’t allowed to recognize, especially within their own ranks?
No more political correctness. We’d better jump to conclusions while we still can.
Is it so hard to admit that we’re at war with Muslims who’ve deemed it their divine mission to convert or kill infidels? So what if only one-percent are violent radicals? That accounts for millions of radical Muslims worldwide. Even the non-radicals have given tacit endorsement to the nutcases.
What’s worse, our enemy isn’t on the other side of the globe; it’s within the military establishment that’s supposed to fight against them. Thirteen flag-draped coffins prove this point. What is our reaction? We won’t even call the Fort Hood attack what it was.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a “peaceful” Muslim, attacked his fellow soldiers, who were unarmed. Forty were wounded and thirteen killed. Now we’re told that we don’t know Hasan’s motivation for turning Fort Hood into a shooting gallery? Please!
Hasan once attended a mosque led by Anwari al-Awlaki and frequented by three of the 9/11 hijackers. Anwari himself is known to support terrorist organizations. Even now, from his current home in Yemen, he uses the Internet to spread Muslim fanaticism. Hasan, it’s said, has a deep-rooted respect for al-Awlaki.
But does the fact that Hasan worshipped in a radical mosque mean that he shared al-Awlaki’s views? Our course not. Our president sat in Jeremiah Wright’s loony bin for 20 years and didn’t hear a single sermon. Let’s not jump to conclusions.
As an army psychiatrist Hasan was charged with helping our troops adjust after concluding their combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet he had become a vehement critic of both wars. He defended suicide bombers and considered our retaliation for Islam’s attacks on us to be a war against Islam. Hasan once told colleagues at Walter Reed than non-Muslims should be set on fire, beheaded and have boiling oil poured down our throats.
But let’s not jump to conclusions.
Just before attacking Ft. Hood Hasan gave his neighbor a Koran and promised, “I’m going to do good work for god.” He was known to use his doctor/patient privilege to spread Islam and encouraged Muslims to rise up against America. He shouted “Allahu Akhbar” as he began his assault.
But let’s not jump to conclusions.
Despite evidence to Hasan’s attitude our main concern appears to be for other Muslims in the armed forces. We can’t have anti-Muslim backlash. We don’t want Muslims offended, or even suspected. It would harm our military diversity. But there’s a solution for any Muslim who might fear retaliation--get out of our military! How can any US soldier be confident that the Muslim beside him isn’t the next Major Hasan, or the next jihad warrior to roll a grenade into a crowded tent?
Call Hasan whatever you want. Call him a terrorist if you like. I call him a treasonous infiltrator and saboteur; a man worthy of death. Oddly, I hope he survives so he can face court martial and execution.
Why are we so concerned with what the “Muslim world” thinks? Muslims aren’t at all concerned with what we think. Frankly, I could care less about offending Muslims or their blood-drenched, bomb-scarred, suicidal religion. Having Muslims in our military at this point in our nation’s history is akin to accepting Soviet enlistees during the Cold War. It’s nonsense to think one’s enemies can play an integral part in one’s defense.
Our “leaders” are blind guides, lacking the foresight and courage to even identify our enemies, much less fight them. Why send troops to confront an enemy they aren’t allowed to recognize, especially within their own ranks?
No more political correctness. We’d better jump to conclusions while we still can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
