Rush Limbaugh made this statement on his show the other day:
“The only way these people (Liberals) will be happy is if they're right -- and what would it take for them to be right? We'd have to lose."( the war on terror) Parenthesis mine.
That started me thinking.
What would become of the United States of America if we lost the war? Do the Liberals think we would be better off? If not, what would be their solution to the problem of stopping terrorism?
Let’s consider how America would change if Usama bin Laden dictated the laws in America.
1. First of all, Anyone that admits to being a Christian or a Jew would be beheaded. Usama takes literally the Qur’an when it commands that the crime of apostasy is punishable by execution. (Sura 6:151).
Also, he distorts the meaning of one of the Qur’an’s version of the 10 commandments (found in Sura 17:23-40) which commands, “You shall not kill anyone whom Allah has forbidden you to kill, except for just cause.”
Apparently, according to bin Laden, apostasy is “just cause”.
The second group that would be executed would be all those American citizens who supported the Terrorists in Iraq, including those who protested the war in the interests of peace. History has shown us that the first people to be executed once a dictatorial regime takes over a country are the ones who served as traitors or spies against that country. Usama would feel, rightly so, that if they would betray their own country, they would eventually betray him.
After all that, the only people left alive in America would be Muslims, and only certain Muslims, at that.
2. The constitution of the United States would be altered somewhat. Starting with the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first thing he would need to do is remove that.. Islam will be the National religion and all citizens still alive and not imprisoned would be required to worship Allah, in accordance to Islamic law. (Usama, being a Wahhabist Muslim, does not support religious tolerance. Wahhabists make distinction between those whom they consider to uphold “true” Islam and “unrighteous” others, including Sufi’s, the Islamic mystics, Christians, and Jews.)
Freedom of speech would be outlawed. No one would be allowed to speak out against the new government. If they do, they will be imprisoned or executed.
The press would be silenced, since the only thing that the people will need to read is the Qur’an, except for the propaganda approved by the government. The people would be discouraged from assembling except to worship in the mosque of their choice.
3. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Yes, throw that out, too. Only “approved” loyalists to Usama will be allowed to bear arms, to prevent any possible coup d’ etat.
4. “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
Does anyone think that will stand in Usama’s world?
5. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
No, I don’t think he would leave that in our constitution either. Do you?
6. In fact, throw out the rest of the amendments, too. All would deprive Usama of the pleasure of asserting his will.
7. No more adultery, gambling, cheating, eating pork, consuming alcohol, and banks would no longer be allowed to charge interest on loans. Actually, the no interest idea isn’t a bad rule.
Oh wait. We would not be allowed to collect interest on savings, either. Better rethink that one.
8. Feminist organizations such as NOW, NARAL, and all the others, will be gone. Women would be required to cover themselves head to toe, even the face, with only 2 slits in the veil, to facilitate sight. And they would not be permitted to voice their opinions either. (Actually, another possible benefit) Men would be allowed to have up to four wives, but women can only have one husband. Jewelry would be discouraged.
9. Abortion would be outlawed. So sorry, Planned Parenthood.
10. No women in politics, or in business.
11. Severe punishment for the most trivial of crimes, and crimes that we don't even consider to be crimes. Cutting off hands, feet, and cutting out tongues, and stoning to death.
These are just some of the changes that could be made to America if we were to lose the war on terrorism. There is probably many more, but on the interest in brevity, I will not attempt to list them. I hope what I’ve already listed makes the point.
Bottom line is this: We cannot afford to lose this war.
And yet, it would appear that losing is exactly what some Liberals want.
Ted, and Chuckie, and Nancy, and Dick, and Pat, and Barbara, and Maxine, and Cindy, and Michael, and the other left wing Liberals who are constantly calling for ending this war and withdrawing our troops before the job is finished should perhaps think about this possibility before the morale of our troops is irreparably damaged and the terrorist are further emboldened.
Their freedom to protest may be endangered.
15 comments:
The people we're currently fighting are never going to have the troops, technology or money to take over the U.S., but yes-that would indeed suck, if that were to happen.
Or-it might indeed happen if we get the entire world hating us: that might just get them the money, the troop numbers, access to better technology. So we'd better not make the rest of the world hate us.
Question: at what point would you consider the job to be done? No anger: that's a serious question.
(Sorry to do this) I mean, one could say that the job's done when they catch bin Laden, but we all know that even when that happens, he still has troops in the field, so...What makes it done when it's done?
It will never be over, Rich........But it's always better to give than to recieve.
We must continue to give them Hell, so they have less of a chance to bring it to us.
Anyone who uses the Drug addled brain of Rush Limpballs as a resource for an article is what is really going to make America and the Reichwing lose.
Sometimes i think people don't read my blog, they only read a few lines and then make a comment.
This comment was not about Rush Limbaugh! Or his opinion. He simply made a statement which made me think, "What if...?"
Even if he's wrong and Liberals don't want us to lose, the question is still something to think about... What if we did lose?
To say that liberals want to lose the war on terror is ridiculous. It would be more accurate to say that liberals have a different idea about how that war should be fought. A lot of us believe that the Iraq operation is a diversion from the GWOT. If you disagree, that's fine. But to use hateful rhetoric like "liberals hate America" or "liberals want America to lose" serves no purpose. Nobody wants to lose their freedoms. Maybe there are indeed some extremist nutjobs out there who want America to lose the war, but they do not represent liberals. We don't agree that the President's way of fighting the war on terror is the ONLY way to do it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whoa. I couldn't get past the idea that anyone would take Rush so seriously. I'll have to come back to with the right frame of mind. Like, the one I take with me to the carnival midway. :-)
I have to make one comment here. The Koran applies only to Muslims. It may be a sin for one Muslim to kill another under certain circumstances, but it is never a sin for a Muslim to kill an infidel. Infidels can and should be killed, enslaved, or taxed into submission at will. Also, Islam has TWO sacred texts. The other, the Hadith or Sunnah, is considered as holy as the Koran and it is there where most of the insanely scary stuff is.
Muhammad was illiterate. So, his followers would just walk along behind him and write down everything he said or did on a rock or a palm leaf or anything that was available. If he say most women go to hell, then most women go to hell. If he said women should cover their bodies so they would not tempt men, then that was it. If he took a dump, then every other Muslim in the world was expected to take a dump in the same manner.
Muhammad was an anti-Semite, a slave trader, a racist (he called himself white and blacks "raisenheads"), a bandit, a warlord, a pedophile (his youngest wife was 8) a con man and had absolutely no redeeming virtues that I can see. It is most distressing that our leaders seem to be so ignorant about our enemies. That ignorance really could lead to our defeat. Everywhere in the world where there are large groups of Muslims interacting with ANY other religion, there is bloodshed. A few weeks ago, Muslims in southern Thailand said they will kill anyone who works on their holy day, Friday. Britain changed divorce laws for Muslims some years back, sending women's rights back to the 7th century. And on, and on, and on. Muslims CANNOT live in peace with any other culture, so this world war will rage until Islam -- or everyone else -- has been wiped out.
That was a long comment.
OK. I came back and read it. And the comments.
Quite a leap to go from the idea of losing over there to the non-sequitor (sp?) of bin Laden runnin' this joint.
Yes, that would suck.
Oh, and let's not forget that extemist Sen. Chuck Hatgel, R-Nebraska!
"Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam, repeated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq."
NOT that I agree with Hagel. I do not. Just pointing out that it ain't only "extemists" that find fault with what we're doing in Iraq.
--ER
I smell Bruiser in here...
Mark:
Thanks for the compliment... But I would only be considered "far right" if you think Ted Kennedy is "mainstream." I met some real far right types once... they turned to each other and said "he's not one of us." "No" I said, "I prefer to win elections, not alienate every single person on the planet other than me."
Signed,
P.S. Your "Sheila" seems to like to throw the word "hate" around alot... Has "she" been hanging out with Howard Dean lately?
The REAL Mike
It's a nice little intellectual exercise, and I think your assertions are accurate as to what would happen, but it won't. Hard as the left tries, we will not lose. You, and I and all the rest of us will make sure to get the messsage of success out, and expose the leftist anti-Americans for what they really are.
"Sheila" Winston Churchill was called a warmonger before World War II. Reagan was called a warmonger before he won the Cold War.
If you listened to Rush for more than five minutes you might find he is no hatemonger. But he also happens to be as right on the money when it comes to where we are in this war as Churchill or Reagan.
You raise a great question, Mark.
I doubt that there are many Americans that believe we could lose. (Of course, how many thought something like 9/11 could have happened? I didn't.)
Generally speaking though, I think we're spoiled. We take our rights for granted and assume that our freedom is a given, not something that needs to be protected.
I think the thought of losing is incomprehensible to most of us.
People, including myself, don't take time to remember that our way of life has come at a tremendous cost. So many Americans have sacrificed so much to ensure our freedom.
What a gift we've been given!
Excellent, that was really well explained and helpful
Post a Comment