Scary.

[carrrnuttt]

I'm sure someone will chime-in on who the below quote is from:

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Besides the relevance of the quoted individual, who else thinks that the above statement is becoming more and more real everyday? It really hit home, when in the wiretap thread, a couple of people brushed off a major violation of a Constitutional amendment, and even Federal law, by saying that it makes them "feel safe", and that the violations were done in good intent, with nothing more than the word of politicians.

I will repeat what I quoted in that other thread:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin


I am not saying that the government will simply turn-around and turn into the Politburo, but people are taking politician's words at face value nowadays, because of fear.

Think about this:

What percentage of politicians do you guys really think sought the office they have, and are seeking higher offices to serve the people?

More than one, I'd hope.

How many are in it for money, and more importantly, sheer lust of power?

More than one, I guarantee.

C'mon people, get off this Republican vs Democrat bullshit, and realize that it's more about Them who are trying to wrest as much power from Us. Or is it "U.S."?

They've already done the divide and conquer crap, now they are going for the "let's scare the bejeesus out of them so we can do or say whatever we want to them and get away with it".

Clinton-ites would've let a proven criminal get away with lying in court because they hated the Republicans that started the process. Now, Bush-ites will let an admitted one slide because they would side with someone posing as a Republican, regardless of his very LIBERAL take on our country's laws.

[MagicRat]

Hmmmmmm..............Hermann Goering!
Ironic subtlety is a strong point of your argument.

I agree with the jist of your post. The (alleged) freedoms and protection of the individual from the State is one of the magnificent things of the US Constitution and judicial system.
It is sad to believe that some people are tempted to give such protection away due to the (understandable) fear of current events.

My American history professor told me that Benjamin Franklin and his collegues are reputed to believe in the fundamentally evil nature of mankind and their quest for power and authority at the expense of other's freedom.
This was a wise and prudent premise, in 1776 and still is today.

[fredjacksonsan]

Hear, hear. Things need to change.

[tenguzero]

Unfortunately these kind of scare tactics have been used far too often in the past by governments to keep the people buying into whatever scheme the politicians want. Take for instance (in respect to the U.S.) Communism, the Cold War, the war on drugs, and now terrorism. What threat has Communism EVER posed to this country? NONE. The closest thing this country came to that rationale was the relatively popular Socialist movements of the early 20th century. The Cold War was nothing but four decades of imaginary threat used to justify massive amounts of defence spending -- making for a LOT of government contracts to politically sympathetic companies, and an excuse for the existence and expansion of major federal intelligence agencies. When the Cold War ended, they needed something to keep justifying the big-budget spending and continued existance of intelligence agencies, so they launched full force into South American coups, and Middle Eastern political entanglements (don't forget, we were buddy-buddy with Saddam during the time he was killing all the Kurds.) Agencies like the CIA and DEA found there reasons with the South American drug trade, as well as the furthering of American interests (since day one, the U.S. has maintained an unspoken "Don't touch South America, it's ours" policy with European powers.)

Now the "war on terror" is the new justification. Remember the big "Security Mom" push toward the end of Bush's first term? Or maybe all of the War on Terror coverage the media outlets have been spewing since 2001? Remember them putting up diagrams on the screen about what a "Terrorist Bunker" facility would look like according to "experts"? Yup. Whole lot going on out in the Tora Bora mountain range But it kept people on their toes.

A lot of people who support policies like the Patriot Act (don't even get me started on the naming implications -- as if those who don't support wiretapping, email monitoring, library record examination, overzealous security measures, and potential pork-barrel spending earmarks are somehow "unpatriotic") like to remind us that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." I'd also like to remind THEM that "eternal vigilance" is a term that applies just as appropriately to the act of US keeping an eye on our OWN government's activities.

[tenguzero]

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/102704nj1.htm

This month's Wired magazine had an interesting article on this elevated rate classified document spending as well. Even more troubling? The incredible dropoff in the rate of document DEclassification since 2001. This is one of the chief areas where our concerns exist -- the combination of vastly heightened secrecy with the implications of various disputed parts of measures like the Patriot Act.

Why are we being kept so much deeper in the dark during a time of such wide-reaching powers on behalf of federal monitoring and spying?

[carrrnuttt]

Notice who's missing from this thread?

All of you Administration sheep, do you agree, or disagree with me?

Or have you been caught, hook-line-and-sinker, and can't (or won't) even acknowledge it?

C'mon, give me a hint that you are actually thinking for yourselves, instead of just busy nodding your head to whatever your choice politician brings up for you...


Here's some of you, being led:

[fredjacksonsan]

I've been expecting some commentary by certain individuals, but ...

[YogsVR4]

If you guys mean me, you'll have to wait a few days. I don't have time to respond to baiting threads right now so, for the mean time, let me just remind everyone that contrary to what some people believe, thinking for yourself does not mean taking a contrary position.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

If you guys mean me, you'll have to wait a few days. I don't have time to respond to baiting threads right now so, for the mean time, let me just remind everyone that contrary to what some people believe, thinking for yourself does not mean taking a contrary position.

Didn't mean you specifically, Yogs; there's just the 4 that had commented so far, with no dissention. These threads usually aren't this one sided.

[TexasF355F1]

Benjamin Franklin was a great all around guy, in my opinion (not that I knew him obviously). But from everything I've read and seen on his life, just amazing.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

If you guys mean me, you'll have to wait a few days. I don't have time to respond to baiting threads right now so, for the mean time, let me just remind everyone that contrary to what some people believe, thinking for yourself does not mean taking a contrary position.

Although I would like to hear your opinion on this, and I do believe you agree with the Administration sometimes beyond (my perceived) reason, the 'call-out' was for the more vehement around here, that are quick to call fellow Americans names, make sweeping judgements/generalizations, etc. - all in the name of supporting their side of the aisle. Though it seems the left has seemed to be less confrontational, I am calling out the extremes on both sides, as these are the ones that are the ones that are really buying what the politicians are selling.

It's also for those that seem willing to sell out their fundamental freedoms afforded them by the Constitution, because the government says that it's the 'safe thing' for them.

Remember the story about Pandora's box? Some of you might be right, and that Bush and the Neo-cons are well-intentioned with what they are doing (right...), but the doors, nay, walls they are breaking right now, will leave a future Administration, with less-than-honorable ambitions, room to operate. George Orwell's stories come to mind.

You do realize they all swear an oath to the Constitution itself, do you?

[Flatrater]

I guess I am one of the ones you are waiting for! So here goes. I have been quiet in this forum for awhile just reading and not posting.

C'mon people, get off this Republican vs Democrat bullshit, and realize that it's more about Them who are trying to wrest as much power from Us. Or is it "U.S."?

I agree with you on most of your post yet I can't help but read it. First you sate the above bold then you go on to say this.

Clinton-ites would've let a proven criminal get away with lying in court because they hated the Republicans that started the process. Now, Bush-ites will let an admitted one slide because they would side with someone posing as a Republican, regardless of his very LIBERAL take on our country's laws.

Do you believe what you wrote? If you do then explain how you practice what you write?

I do agree with some of your post. I do see the scary tatics being used by both sides and that the only thing politicans are after is more power. I am not blinded by my beliefs, I full well know that both sides are guilty of this.

I see more democrats being led like sheep. The dems will do anything to hurt the republicans without thought as long as it goes against the republicans. Democrats are too busy trying to hinder the republicans that they lost sight of their core beliefs. Why do you think we have a republican led congress as well as a republican president? Until the dems get back to basics we will keep control of the government. Kerry lost because he spent more time and money trying to drag Bush thru the mud instead of stating his stance.

[Flatrater]

This is pretty old news but I think it's fitting this time of year and in this topic.



Back in January of 1996, the Rev. Joe Wright, senior pastor of the 2,500-member Central Christian Church in Wichita, was invited to offer the opening prayer at a session of the Kansas House of Representatives. This was the prayer he offered:

'Heavenly Father, we come before you to ask your forgiveness. We seek your direction and your guidance. We know your word says, "Woe to those who call evil good." But that's what we've done.

We've lost our spiritual equilibrium. We have inverted our values. We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word in the name of moral pluralism. We have worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.

We've exploited the poor and called it a lottery. We've neglected the needy and called it self-preservation. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. In the name of choice, we have killed our unborn. In the name of right to life, we have killed abortionists.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem. We have abused power and called it political savvy. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it taxes. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, oh, God, and know our hearts today. Try us. Show us any wickedness within us. Cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of the State of Kansas, and that they have been ordained by you to govern this great state.

Grant them your wisdom to rule. May their decisions direct us to the center of your will. And, as we continue our prayer and as we come in out of the fog, give us clear minds to accomplish our goals as we begin this Legislature. For we pray in Jesus' name, Amen.'

Rev. Wright had been invited to serve as the House's guest chaplain by Rep. Anthony Powell, a Wichita Republican who was also a member of Wright's church. Accordingly, Rev. Wright read the prayer at the opening of the legislature on January 23, and departed, unaware of the ruckus he had created until his church secretary called him on his car phone to ask him what he had done.

Reportedly, one Democrat walked out in protest, three others gave speeches critical of Wright's prayer, and another blasted Wright's "message of intolerance." House Minority Leader Tom Sawyer (also a Democrat) asserted that the prayer "reflects the extreme, radical views that continue to dominate the House Republican agenda since right-wing extremists seized control of the House Republican caucus last year." Rep. Jim Long, a Democrat from Kansas City, said that Wright "made everyone mad." But Rep. Powell, who had invited Wright in the first place, claimed that House Democrats were only trying to make political points with their criticism and affirmed that he supported the theme of the prayer.

Rev. Wright said afterwords: "I certainly did not mean to be offensive to individuals, but I don't apologize for the truth." His staff stopped counting the telephone calls that came from every state and many foreign countries after the first 6,500. ....Wright later explained, "I thought I might get a call from an angry congressman or two, but I was talking to God, not them. The whole point was to say that we all have sins that we need to repent — all of us . . . The problem, I guess, is that you're not supposed to get too specific when you're talking about sin."

I think Rev. Wright nailed it with that last comment.

Merry Christmas, my friends!

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

You do realize they all swear an oath to the Constitution itself, do you?

I have taken a similar oath. Have you? Not only do you swear to uphold and defend the Constitution but to protect this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic.


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)






"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato.

[GTP Dad]

I guess I am one of the others you are waiting to chime in with an opinion so here goes. First of all unless you have your head buried in the sand there are a lot of problems in this country that need to be solved, poverty, drugs, unaffordable health care and a host of others. A lot of these issues have been ignored by politicians both republican and democrat and they continue to argue over partisan issues. Most of you want me to get off the republican vs. democrat bullshit but a lot of the finger pointing that is going on is directly related to partisan politics.

The other issues here deal with our loss of freedoms, face it folks our loss of freedoms has been going on long before this argument of whether Bush violated the constitution even started. Try to purchase a handgun in some states or cities good second amendment argument here and what about Clinton's ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, fortunately that one has gone away.

What about the debate of posting the ten commandments in court houses. The seperation of church and state is out of hand. My right to free speech is under attack as well because if I go into a federal building and invoke God's name who knows what would happen. Kids in school can't sing Christmas carols anymore because it would condone a certain religion. Are they constitutional issues, yes, do these issues infringe on my rights yes!

Now back to being a lamb led to slaughter! I am no lamb. Do I support the soldiers in the battle zones you bet, do I support everything the Bush administration does absolutely not.

One of the things we all fail to realize is that not only is the threat from terrorism real it has already happened and it will happen again. I don't know where or when but I believe the threat is not only external but internal. With the number of radical factions that have been identifed action needs to be taken to identify them and stop them before they have the ability to act.

Now, did the Bush administration do something illegal yes they did, as each wiretap should have been authorized by a judge. But lets put everyone in this debate on the spot and ask what would you have done if you were told that a certain group of people were plotting to blow up a mall or high rise and kill thousands but you didn't have any information other than the name of the group and a couple of members. No judge would give you a warrant to do wiretaps with that amount of information. Suppose you did nothing and that attack happened. The people would crucify you for inaction. So we have to ask ourselves, do we act or do we ignore the issue?

Finally, the free borders of the United States have created a large part of these problems. Allowing foreign nationals to come into the US unchecked have given rise to issues that were never a consideration before. My grand parents were immigrants in the 1920's who came here for a better life they didn't come to try to overthrough our way of life but to live that life for themselves. Today radicals are trying to destroy the American way of life because of their own ideas as to how we should live they are not coming here to live the American dream, a portion of them are coming to try to create as much chaos and damage as they can and are willing to sacrifice themselves to insure that it happens.

I will conclude this by saying extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. If the members of congress want to impeach Bush for what he did then let them. If the people of the United States want to have Bush impeached then petitions can be circulated for signatures to require the politicians to bring it to a hearing. But when the next 9-11 is averted or the next terrorist attack is prevented. Then lets give credit where credit is due. And as Americans let us not forget that we are free to express our opinions and that is what I have done here. Enough said!