"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved". --Confucius
I have been agonizing over what to post today. I have been rather contentious and offensive in my previous posts, and I don't like myself when I get that way.
I suppose what is upsetting me is the recent allegations that President Bush has been breaking the law in wiretapping phone calls between suspected terrorists within the United States in an effort to stop future 9/11 type attacks before they have a chance of happening. Everyone has heard all about it by now. I don't have to rehash everything.
I believe the President is an honorable man. I believe him to be a man of integrity and honesty. I do not want to believe he would do anything that he is not legally allowed to do.
There has been arguments from both sides regarding the legality of this. I read somewhere that there is legal precedence supporting the claim that it is legal. I hope that is true.
Because if it is determined that the President acted illegally, among other things, the wiretaps will have to stop. Harry Reid has boasted that his party has killed the Patriot act, and "Jamies wall" will go back up, effective at midnight Jan 1st.
All of these actions will leave the United States effectively defenseless against future attacks on our soil. We will be unable to ascertain what, if anything, the existing al Qaeda cells already in America are planning.
If, indeed, we have to stop protecting our citizens against brutal murderers and terrorists, we can only rely on God for our protection.
But guess what? I no longer care. Most of the whiny, bleeding heart, Liberal, sob sisters that want us to live in an absolute open society where al-Qaeda terrorists are free to plan murderous attacks in peace without fear of being found out by the government, live in the large cities, like New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Oklahoma City. The places that will be the first to be hit.
To them I say, "You made your bed, You die in it."
I live in a village with a population of 450 people, far out of range of any nuclear fallout. I will survive to be given the choice of worshipping Allah or God. No one in my family lives in a potential danger zone except for my brother near Philadelphia and he is in an advanced stage of MS, so death is imminent to him, anyway. And both he and I know where we're going when we die.
So I am not worried. As for the rest of you, may God have mercy on your soul, because the Democrats won't.
Winning the next election is so much more important than that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Yes it is, Brandon. Jesus tells us, when we are ignored by the people we are trying to save, we should just shake the dust off out feet at them and leave them to their own ruin. (Paraphraed)
Mark,
Don't worry, the Democrats are about to be Ollie North'd. Like with the Sandinistas, they will look like they are protecting the terrorists.
I am not showing disdain. I am merely saying I am shaking the dust off. As for empathy, i am shopwing empathy when I say "May God have mercy on your souls".
I mean that with all empathy.
Fritz, they are most definitely protecting the terrorists. That's why, if they get their way, we will be attacked again.
m brandon,
You are, the Democratic Party is staging a Sunni insurgency against this President. Constant obstruction to prevent progress. Only a few degrees away from the violence in Iraq. If it weren't for the Second Amendment, there would be violence.
I agree, Brandon. I don't think they want us to fall to terror attacks either. They just want to win elections, but if it takes that to beat the Republicans, they will allow it.
What do you think killing the Patriot act does, if not allowing the terrorrists to plan new attacks in relative safety?
Mark,
You trust the better Red than dead crowd?
Brandon, when i said, "Winning the next election is more important than that" I was referring to the Democrats mindset, not my own.
Maybe I should make myself more clear.
In much of this post, I was being sarcastic. I don't want anyone to die. Well, except for terrorists.
I am merely pointing out, that if the Democrats in the houses of Congress have their way, innocent people will die from terrorist attacks.
And no one is spying on innocent American citizens. They are spying on suspected and confirmed al-Qaeda operatives within and without our borders. If we didn't we would most certainly be attacked again.
Fritz, sorry. I don't know what you're referring to.
Good post and I agree with you Mark. I'll leave it to you to argue with the liberals. I don't do it any more. I found out I can't get anywhere and so have concluded it's a waste of my time. Still and all liberals are Americans (at least by birth if not by patriotism) and so I wish everyone here a Merry Christmas and a very blessed New Year!
Brandon, did you hear yourself?
"Peta and Greenpeace may have occaisionally blown stuff up to make a political point, but they have never sponsored a Terrorist Attack..."
Mark, I cannot wait for the '06 mid-terms...
After then, there won't be enough Dems left in Washington to mount these idiotic filibusters, and Representative Government can once again be the system of government in America, instead of the Minority Rule system we are using now.
Till then, the best thing that could happen for Republicans is for the Dems to continue their antics.
OOPS! I mean...
Keep it up Guys! You are winning!
You really have us Republicans on the ropes now...
I am still trying to figure out who brought up PETA and Greenpeace. I know I didn't. I pretty much consider them as fringe wackos with little to no relevance at all.
Oh wait. I just went back over the comments and i think I understand now. I hadn't heard PETA and Greenpeace were being wiretapped, but since they are Liberal organizations and it is the Liberals who are most likely to be in alliance with al-Qaeda, then maybe there is a connection there. I don't know. But I'm sure if intelligence agencies consider them a threat, the threat should be taken seriously. Best to err on the side of caution when the safety of Americans is at stake. Don't you agreee?
I certainly do agree with your last comment here Mark.
Wanted to know I left an answer to your question on My Republican Blog. Also, the site the post refers to happens to have turned out to be a joke site. Read my latest update on that post. It's still a totally offensive post, maybe even more so than if it were for real, but at least equally so. Calling themselves Baptists! It's a wonder they haven't been sued.
Oh, holy Jesus help me. I thought I could stomach coming back here again. No!
"it is the Liberals who are most likely to be in alliance with al-Qaeda."
gAAAAAHHH ...
I think the way the Dems are willing to sacrifice our national security, all in the name of seizing political power, is disgusting.
Think of September 11, 2001. Think of what happened. Now, think of what the Dems and RINOs are doing.
On September 12, 2001, I would never have predicted that the Dems would be undermining our country the way they are.
I honestly believe that the American anti-Bush forces are a danger to the nation.
Oh come on, ER, do you honestly believe the Conservatives are more closely aligned with terrorists than Liberals? Which ones are the ones that are trying to prevent the President from preventing future attacks by crippling our intelligence gathering?
I think it's stupid and outrageous to say that ANYBODY in this country who is not TAKING UP ARMS against this country is "aligned" with any enemy.
I'm working a post around in my head: "The UnAmerican President."
That's your man. What irony! What truth!
You people want to throw out 200-plus years of experience and law, you want everyone who disagrees with you to sit down and shut up -- and that is NOT American.
If this country falls, it will not be because of our enemies. It will be because of the cancers within -- and the cancers are ignorance and fear, garden-variety selfishness and lies, lies and more lies, from the top of the Republican Party to the bottom-feeding blogs of its rank-and-file.
You keep looking for people to blame, just like your party's lying leadership, when you should be looking for people to work with, because that's the way it's going to be.
By the way, it cracks me up to see crap like "RINO." Shows how extreme Mary's views are. She's already cannibalizing her own party and marginalizing dissent with in it.
Pretty soon, she and others like her will find themsevles all alone in a box made of mirrors, while the rest of the damn country struggles on to find a way to fight these bastards WITHOUT taking a Bic lighter to the effing Constitution!
Hey, your Moonbat generator is wearin' a Santa hat! Cool.
Brandon, I will agree. There are nuts and fanatics in both parties.
ER, I never said anyone should sit down and shut up.
It is possible to be against a war without giving information out that endangers our troops and emboldens the enemy, and that's what I am referring to.
I myself am against war, as I've stated many tiimes, But I recognise that it is sometimes necessary, and I also recognise that it is irresponsible to say things that give aid and comfort to the ememy.
You know, things like, "We cannot win this war" and calling our troops terrorists.
Mark, I enjoyed your post. The comment stream is interesting, too.
IMHO the president is acting within the constitutional powers bestowed upon the presidency. I believe President Bush is honorably trying to preclude another 9-11. I do not believe there is a personal or political motivation to spy on average Americans. I believe the motivation is purely protection of our citizens.
What I find interesting about this situation is the feigned outrage emanating from our more liberal folks. The battle cry echoes a total disregard for the Fourth Amendment. Yet research reveals that many presidents have invoked the same measures before President Bush. Yet there was no outcry when it was made public that President Clinton conducted the same surveillance measures, or any of the presidents before him. If there was no outcry before, and President Bush is employing the same means and measures, why the outcry now? It just smacks of a partisanship that our country should not have to endure at this time in our history. Playing partisan politics with our national security will not go over well during the next election cycle.
Anyway, great post, Mark. Keep up the good work. Merry Christmas and may God bless you and your family.
I retract "stupid," and I apologize.
LOL, ER you are a bird in this world.
A bird in this world.
I know I've been hard on the Democrats, but look at it this way:
No one really cares what I think.
I will try to be more tolerant in the future.
old soldier,
"many presidents have invoked the same measures before President Bush."
They followed the rules, went to court first; they did not freelance the way this president has done.
mark, glad I could make ya LOL. :-) Not sure what you mean, tho. ?? a bird? what?
I got that from The Andy Griffith Show. Andy was fond of saying, "Aunt Bea, you are a bird in this world, a bird in this world"
Lovingly, of course.
Ah. Anything Andy would say to Aunt Bee wouldn't be mean! :-)
Merry Christmas, Mark!
One more point, and I'll have all the stuff out of my craw (which won't change one dang opinion):
Saying that the Dems are doing what they're doing to to win in '06 is nuts. On its face.
The Dems are not doing the things they are doing because they think it's popular (although a very few deluded folks might very well be that deluded.) The Dems are doing what they're doing because they think it's the right thing to do.
Saying otherwise is sort of like saying gay people choose to be gay, even though virtually everyone but their own intimate others in this country castigates them for it and makes life hell for them, as if that's an incentive.
Oh, wait, y'all on the right do that, too. Never mind. :-)
That's what we said, ER.
They think that saying those things will win them the '06 Elections, and they believe that winning the Elections and getting their power back is the right thing to do.
They are saying those things to undermine and marginalize the Bush Presidency, which they think is the right thing to do.
They say those things so that George Soros and Michael Moore will give them money, and getting that money , they believe, is the right thing to do.
The fact that saying those things weakens our National Security, makes us more vulnerable to Domestic Terrorism, and causes more of our troops to be killed is a by-product.
It is typical of the problem that I have with most Liberals in general.
They seem to have no ability to understand Cause and Effect, beyond their own Immediate Goals. They seem to have no ability to follow anything to it's eventual logical conclusion.
I prefer to think the Dems are doing what they are doing for votes. Otherwise it would have to be that they want is to be attacked, and that is just unthinkable.
Oh and by the way, It is my opinion that gays DO choose to be gay. And I don't know why they would do that either, other than it might be easier for them to score that way.
Tug, either you can't read, or you're being intentionally thick:
"They think that saying those things will win them the '06 Elections ..."
No, they don't. Only fools would think that. Doing the things they are doing will COST them support, and they know it, but they do it anyway because it's the right thing to do.
Do you really not get that, or are you just being thick?
I think it could be the latter. Y'all are so used to be being sheep, and following without question, that you don't recognize true integrity when you see it, and the only way you can make sense of it is to ascribe some nefarious aim thereto!
Oh, Mark. If you could get to D.C. for lunch by leaving extra early, you'll be toast. Get prayed up.
Sigh. I retract "thick" and I apologize.
"Most of the whiny, bleeding heart, Liberal, sob sisters that want us to live in an absolute open society where al-Qaeda terrorists are free to plan murderous attacks in peace without fear of being found out by the government...."
what a gross mischaracterization. those who oppose the act object to certain provisions it carries. we do not oppose security, we simply refuse to surrender our rights and privacy in order to gain it. you may that benjamin franklin for inspiring this sentiment in us.
"I no longer care."
that's okay; we on the left still do.
KEvron
"they will look like they are protecting the terrorists."
but you and i will know that it's not true, eh, fritz? it will, as you say, just "look" that way to some though we'll both know that it's a spin that does not accurately reflect the truth. it'll be a lie that some people will unscrupulously promulgate, without remorse or regard to fair play, eh, fritz?
KEvron
er, "you may thank...."
KEvron
Post a Comment