Ok, here is a letter I just sent off to the editor of the Globe. Highly doubt it will see the light of day because its so long and does question the Democratic Leadeership, The Media and the sheeple.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms April Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Letter I just sent to the editor
- Thread starter Skald
- Start date
I don't think so, editors sometimes can see the veiled jabs. I just very much did an intelligent jab that mainstream media is a tool of the far left who have no clue how to lead.
Its not as subtle as I could have made it because I think that the sheeple wouldn't see it. Again, the sad fact is critical thinking and independant thought is slowly being frowned upon and mocked.
Its not as subtle as I could have made it because I think that the sheeple wouldn't see it. Again, the sad fact is critical thinking and independant thought is slowly being frowned upon and mocked.
Great letter! Whether or not it sees print, the Eds get a chance to chew on the words. And that sends a message that at least some of us recognize we're in a different world than yesteryear, which requires new means to protect the affairs of Americans.
BTW, I can't write a letter like yours; the stuff in the media irks me to the point that my letters don't convey, in a meaningful way, what needs to be said, but are retaliatory. Unfortunately, that I recognize the media makes up the news it tries to sell John Q Public does little to lower my level of irkedness. The sad fact is, too many of those who watch or read the news buy into the crap the media makes up, which leads to the very types of biases those on this forum are trying to fight.
Maybe Henry Flippo Ryan will make a segment out of it on the Channel 7 News.
BTW, I can't write a letter like yours; the stuff in the media irks me to the point that my letters don't convey, in a meaningful way, what needs to be said, but are retaliatory. Unfortunately, that I recognize the media makes up the news it tries to sell John Q Public does little to lower my level of irkedness. The sad fact is, too many of those who watch or read the news buy into the crap the media makes up, which leads to the very types of biases those on this forum are trying to fight.
Maybe Henry Flippo Ryan will make a segment out of it on the Channel 7 News.
I benifit from being forced to live amongst the enemy for 7 years and I am fully confident in my writing abilities. That was just a 1 shot write, 0 polishing except for spelling.
Skald said:
I strongly disagree with you. It's got nothing to do with the democrats whatsoever, it's about Bush tearing up the constitution under the guise of national security. It's modern day McCarthyism.
Fester. I actually lived with a Muslim for a full semester in college. Does this make me an expert on them? No, but what it does make me is see with my eyes that they are very feverent in their beleifs even among the progessive sect.
I am sorry. I do not fear death, but at the same time if my death could have been prevented because someone followed a hunch on someone. Unlike Mccarthyism, Islamic fundementalism IS for the most part limited in scope to those of a Middle Eastern ethnicity. Yes, there are some of European heritage that are Muslim, but they are converted.
Do I think we should give the gov't carte blanche able to investigate us? No. BUT if your of the Islamic faith, you have had a few unsubstaniated reports that your more radical than originally beleived. If he has US Citizenship it should not be the get out of jail free card.
As I said, people like Thomas Jefferson and the like NEVER thought they would have to deal with religious fanatics who don't think twice about taking an airplane or two and use them to murder over 3,000 innocent people who are citizens of this nation.
Price of freedom is never cheap. But to keep that freedom one must be vigilant. I beleive whoever said that doesn't mean just the internal mechanisms of our country, but also external.
Like it or not, we are at war. We did NOT declare war on the terrorists, they declared war on us first. And they will stop at nothing til one three things happen, and I'm talking about Western Civilization.
1. We give up any and all religions save for Islam and embrace it and Sharia law. (Basically kiss alot of the freedoms you enjoy now good-bye.)
2. We get to keep worshipping as we do but become non-citizens and do not partake in any policy makings as we can not be trusted. When dealt with we will be classified into one of two categories
Zimmis, those that are in custody, and are required to pay tribute/taxes to the country they live in if it embraces Sharia. And are still subject to its law.
or
Hudna. A Hudna is a person who signed a truce not to wage any sort of war against Islam. You get to live in your homeland but are still subject to its laws even if your not Muslim
3. You are executed as an 'infidel' or whatever.
Now. Remember, the goal of the group who has declared war on us want Sharia law to rule the world. Not just the middle east. They want it to be implemented in US, Canada, Britain, France Germany etc.
Now, to keep our eyes closed and keep the way we are acting we are setting ourselves for repeated attacks like those of 9/11 and most likely eventual subjection to Sharia law because people in this country as a whole do not take the time to step out of their morales and view points and do a dig of research on other cultures and see it from their eyes.
Now, if one doesn't understand what I just said. I can sum it up like this. they will do whatever it takes to have Sharia rule the world and will not stop til all who are trying to make it so are dead or it happens. There is no middle ground to stand.
When people say this is a fight of survival for our way of life. They are NOT lieing. The soldiers over there are not only fighting and dieing for the rights and freedom of Iraqi's, but to an extent the very same people who say things like you do.
Right now we are in a false sense of security. One of the reasons that we really haven't seen much more acts like those of 9/11 around the world is our boys got them reacting to us, and not vice versa. In a way we are dictating the war. And as is shown, the terrorists in Iraq are slowly being turned over by the Iraqi people who basically go and give them up to the US Forces.
They are doing this because trust is something that is never given. It is earned. And frankly, Western Civilization has very much treated the Arab world like shit since the Crusades to present day.
I am sorry. I do not fear death, but at the same time if my death could have been prevented because someone followed a hunch on someone. Unlike Mccarthyism, Islamic fundementalism IS for the most part limited in scope to those of a Middle Eastern ethnicity. Yes, there are some of European heritage that are Muslim, but they are converted.
Do I think we should give the gov't carte blanche able to investigate us? No. BUT if your of the Islamic faith, you have had a few unsubstaniated reports that your more radical than originally beleived. If he has US Citizenship it should not be the get out of jail free card.
As I said, people like Thomas Jefferson and the like NEVER thought they would have to deal with religious fanatics who don't think twice about taking an airplane or two and use them to murder over 3,000 innocent people who are citizens of this nation.
Price of freedom is never cheap. But to keep that freedom one must be vigilant. I beleive whoever said that doesn't mean just the internal mechanisms of our country, but also external.
Like it or not, we are at war. We did NOT declare war on the terrorists, they declared war on us first. And they will stop at nothing til one three things happen, and I'm talking about Western Civilization.
1. We give up any and all religions save for Islam and embrace it and Sharia law. (Basically kiss alot of the freedoms you enjoy now good-bye.)
2. We get to keep worshipping as we do but become non-citizens and do not partake in any policy makings as we can not be trusted. When dealt with we will be classified into one of two categories
Zimmis, those that are in custody, and are required to pay tribute/taxes to the country they live in if it embraces Sharia. And are still subject to its law.
or
Hudna. A Hudna is a person who signed a truce not to wage any sort of war against Islam. You get to live in your homeland but are still subject to its laws even if your not Muslim
3. You are executed as an 'infidel' or whatever.
Now. Remember, the goal of the group who has declared war on us want Sharia law to rule the world. Not just the middle east. They want it to be implemented in US, Canada, Britain, France Germany etc.
Now, to keep our eyes closed and keep the way we are acting we are setting ourselves for repeated attacks like those of 9/11 and most likely eventual subjection to Sharia law because people in this country as a whole do not take the time to step out of their morales and view points and do a dig of research on other cultures and see it from their eyes.
Now, if one doesn't understand what I just said. I can sum it up like this. they will do whatever it takes to have Sharia rule the world and will not stop til all who are trying to make it so are dead or it happens. There is no middle ground to stand.
When people say this is a fight of survival for our way of life. They are NOT lieing. The soldiers over there are not only fighting and dieing for the rights and freedom of Iraqi's, but to an extent the very same people who say things like you do.
Right now we are in a false sense of security. One of the reasons that we really haven't seen much more acts like those of 9/11 around the world is our boys got them reacting to us, and not vice versa. In a way we are dictating the war. And as is shown, the terrorists in Iraq are slowly being turned over by the Iraqi people who basically go and give them up to the US Forces.
They are doing this because trust is something that is never given. It is earned. And frankly, Western Civilization has very much treated the Arab world like shit since the Crusades to present day.
Skald, very good article. Hope they print it. Your other points I hope you wake a few more sheep up. It's what alot of us have been saying for a long time.
I guess I will fall into the infidel catagory.![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
At some time I have no doubts we will have another 9/11. I would rather our guys fight them on their land and on our terms which is what this President has done. None of the other past presidents would have had the guts to do it.
I guess I will fall into the infidel catagory.
At some time I have no doubts we will have another 9/11. I would rather our guys fight them on their land and on our terms which is what this President has done. None of the other past presidents would have had the guts to do it.
dwarven1 said:
I agree, but at that time he didn't have religous fanatacs come into our country and get assimilated into our society to just kill as many as they can as fast as they can as violently as they can.
Also, the lemmings that are society as a whole no longer want to be vigilant about these things. If we as a people wont stand vigilint against those who wants to kill us then who does? I would think the government because they didn't take that aspect away. We as a society in general GAVE them that responsibility.
I would be fully against this action had the Gov't come in and did it when we as a society where keeping vigilint. But, sadly we don't.
And I do wish to stress that I know there are people out there who do, but I believe not enough to watch a nation of oursize like they were once capable of.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Skald said:
I suspect that most of our fellow citizens have been thoroughly conditioned (by the media, among others) to beleve that it's the gov't's job to do this... and want to have someone else (ie, the gov't) do it for them.
For some people, it hurts too much to think. [cry]
You know Ross, I can't even argue that. My mother is living proof of it. [roll]
The vigilance is on the goverment. The likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, Dean. They are all appeasers. They are the ones who would let these fanatics run unbridled thoughout the world.dwarven1 said:
Skald said:
This sounds alot like "What do I care about assault weapons and high capacity magazines? It's not like they're going to come after my hunting shotgun."
Every American citizen has the right to due process, and to be free from unwarranted searches. If these people came here with the intention of harming us and became citizens, then we've got an immigration problem. That doesn't mean the government should just decide for itself (without telling anybody) to ignore the constitution. The Patriot Act is bad enough, this is just downright disheartening.
Lets face it. This is a catch 22.
Damned if we do
Damned if we don't.
Everyone screams 'against the constitution' when something like this happens. But most people forget the pre-amble to it.
Now, in it it makes specific mention of 'the general welfare.' Which can be defined as
And yes, I do realize what is meant, but the Government does have the responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. To uphold 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'
Though the Declaration is not the supreme law of the land, it can be used as a point of reference to what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
Like any writing, everything is intpreted from a personal point of view. When we start looking at either the letter of the law OR spirit of the law, which is now happening. One group see's the letter the other the spirit, and not both we will fail.
Example for Christians is the Sixth Commandment 'Thou shall not kill.'
It does not say "Thou Shall Not Murder" or "Thou shall not kill unless you fear for your life.' or 'Thou shall not kill another man.' or anything else. But many do intrpret it as 'Thou shall not murder another man.'
If we are to take that commandment is written and then subject it to the strict wording many on both sides of the politicial spectrum like to intpret an aspect of it that they beleive in, you have just commited a Venial Sin if one kills a mosquito that is aggrivating you by feeding on you.
Now, yes it is far fetched, but it is an excellent example on how people will intrepret laws and meanings that best benefit and fit into their own beleifs.
And when in doubt, when things seem like its fuzzy and is grey (such as what Bush did). One should look at the spirit of the law and try and get the perspective of the writer of it. We are fortunate in that we actually have 2 documents that help us get the intent and spirit of the US Constitution.
Declaration of Independence
and
Articles of Confederation (1781, passed by congress by not ratified by the states.)
In end
Did Bush violate the letter of the law according the US Constitution. No
No ammendment in the US Constitution prevents the Gov't from spying on and investigating its own citizens. The 4th Amendment does state
What is and isn't unreasonable is not defined. Its given a bit of leeway.
Damned if we do
Damned if we don't.
Everyone screams 'against the constitution' when something like this happens. But most people forget the pre-amble to it.
Now, in it it makes specific mention of 'the general welfare.' Which can be defined as
Though the likes of Kerry et al would suspect that it means social programs and the like, its meaning is linked to a very important document of American history, US Declaration of Independence in which they wrote:
And yes, I do realize what is meant, but the Government does have the responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. To uphold 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'
Though the Declaration is not the supreme law of the land, it can be used as a point of reference to what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
Like any writing, everything is intpreted from a personal point of view. When we start looking at either the letter of the law OR spirit of the law, which is now happening. One group see's the letter the other the spirit, and not both we will fail.
Example for Christians is the Sixth Commandment 'Thou shall not kill.'
It does not say "Thou Shall Not Murder" or "Thou shall not kill unless you fear for your life.' or 'Thou shall not kill another man.' or anything else. But many do intrpret it as 'Thou shall not murder another man.'
If we are to take that commandment is written and then subject it to the strict wording many on both sides of the politicial spectrum like to intpret an aspect of it that they beleive in, you have just commited a Venial Sin if one kills a mosquito that is aggrivating you by feeding on you.
Now, yes it is far fetched, but it is an excellent example on how people will intrepret laws and meanings that best benefit and fit into their own beleifs.
And when in doubt, when things seem like its fuzzy and is grey (such as what Bush did). One should look at the spirit of the law and try and get the perspective of the writer of it. We are fortunate in that we actually have 2 documents that help us get the intent and spirit of the US Constitution.
Declaration of Independence
and
Articles of Confederation (1781, passed by congress by not ratified by the states.)
In end
Did Bush violate the letter of the law according the US Constitution. No
No ammendment in the US Constitution prevents the Gov't from spying on and investigating its own citizens. The 4th Amendment does state
What is and isn't unreasonable is not defined. Its given a bit of leeway.
Garys
NES Member
Skald brings up some good points, but misses a couple.
First, although we think of the Bill of Rights as absolutes, they aren't quite. Perhaps the best known example of this was stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919,
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
Nor does the First Amendment protect words intended to incite violence. The U.S. Supreme Court defined fighting words as those words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Such utterances can be outlawed.
There are also exceptions to the Fourth Amendment prohibitions to warrantless searches. When exigent circumstances or a an immediate emergency exist, public officials can enter private premises without warrants and contraband found there incidental to the entry may be used as evidence.
In the case of the NSA eaves dropping, there are specific circumstances in which warrantless "seizure" of communications is permitted. Specifically, the parties being monitored must be located outside the US or those located inside the US must be non permanent resident aliens or those in the country illegally. Therefore US citizens, native born or naturalized and those living here with valid Green Cards are protected from the outlined activities.
During the War Between the States Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. During WWII, all amatuer radio stations were ordered off the air for the duration and there was censorship of the press and radio. All photos taken in combat zones were reviewed by censors. All letters written home by soldiers were read by officers before they could be mailed. The officers were charged with censoring any information that might be of value to the enemy.
And so on.
BTW Uncle Fester, can you explain who McCarthy was and what he did? For bonus points, was he right or wrong about his charges?
Gary
First, although we think of the Bill of Rights as absolutes, they aren't quite. Perhaps the best known example of this was stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919,
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
Nor does the First Amendment protect words intended to incite violence. The U.S. Supreme Court defined fighting words as those words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Such utterances can be outlawed.
There are also exceptions to the Fourth Amendment prohibitions to warrantless searches. When exigent circumstances or a an immediate emergency exist, public officials can enter private premises without warrants and contraband found there incidental to the entry may be used as evidence.
In the case of the NSA eaves dropping, there are specific circumstances in which warrantless "seizure" of communications is permitted. Specifically, the parties being monitored must be located outside the US or those located inside the US must be non permanent resident aliens or those in the country illegally. Therefore US citizens, native born or naturalized and those living here with valid Green Cards are protected from the outlined activities.
During the War Between the States Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. During WWII, all amatuer radio stations were ordered off the air for the duration and there was censorship of the press and radio. All photos taken in combat zones were reviewed by censors. All letters written home by soldiers were read by officers before they could be mailed. The officers were charged with censoring any information that might be of value to the enemy.
And so on.
BTW Uncle Fester, can you explain who McCarthy was and what he did? For bonus points, was he right or wrong about his charges?
Gary
For those of you who are PO'd by Bush's trampling the Constitution (as I am), always remember this:
The outcome of the 2004 Election was going to either Bush or Kerry. There was NO third party capable of winning.
Bush waanted to take half of our rights and protections, with time limits on that.
Kerry wanted to take away ALL of our rights, and subjugate us to the UN. And wanted it PERMANENT.
Now, do you want to lose half your rights for a couple years, or lose ALL your rights permanently? A 0r B, there is no C choice here.
The outcome of the 2004 Election was going to either Bush or Kerry. There was NO third party capable of winning.
Bush waanted to take half of our rights and protections, with time limits on that.
Kerry wanted to take away ALL of our rights, and subjugate us to the UN. And wanted it PERMANENT.
Now, do you want to lose half your rights for a couple years, or lose ALL your rights permanently? A 0r B, there is no C choice here.
Would not even wanted to see Kerry anywhere near the whitehouse. Still don't.
For those that may have missed it...
What started this was finding names on captured computers from the bad guy terrorists that were captured. All the info was on the 'puters. Now, considering that the President was lambasted for not doing enough before 9/11 to stop it from occuring, I don't blame him for cutting corners, considering the sources for the info. Especially when the folks they're looking at are in communication with the terrorists.
If any of those names on the computers were Americans, and they were in contact with the terrorists, then, imho, they're traitors and need to be tracked down, especially if they're involved with any plans that deal with destroying Americans.
The Bush haters are doing their damdest to make the President look bad, and let us not forget they will LIE about anything and the media will not try to find out if what they say is the truth.
What started this was finding names on captured computers from the bad guy terrorists that were captured. All the info was on the 'puters. Now, considering that the President was lambasted for not doing enough before 9/11 to stop it from occuring, I don't blame him for cutting corners, considering the sources for the info. Especially when the folks they're looking at are in communication with the terrorists.
If any of those names on the computers were Americans, and they were in contact with the terrorists, then, imho, they're traitors and need to be tracked down, especially if they're involved with any plans that deal with destroying Americans.
The Bush haters are doing their damdest to make the President look bad, and let us not forget they will LIE about anything and the media will not try to find out if what they say is the truth.
Interesting observations. The Catch-22 allusion is quite apt. My own opinion is to wonder how much of our Constitution will be left if one of our major metropolitan areas [such as Boston] goes up in a mushroom cloud. An ounce of prevention at this point may be more palatable than any cure after the fact.
Similar threads
