Custom Search

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

A Perfect Example of Denial

In response to
yesterdays post a few comments came in that I would like to point out as a perfect example of people who live in denial and are more worried about a terrorists/murderers "rights" than they are of America's safety.

My post, linked above, was called "Are We Supposed to Feel Sorry for a Murderer" and this response is from a man, Greg, who comments here often. Nice guy it seems with far different beliefs than I have, which is fine, but in my mind he represents the mindset of many that I consider naive and living in a world of denial.

His Comment:

No American citizen should ever be held without being charged with a crime.
Greg Daniels | 12.05.06 - 12:25 pm |

My Response:

greg in case you haven't noticed, we have a small problem of certain "american citizens" joining terrorist orginizations... as far as I am concerned that makes them the ENEMY, I don't give a damn where they were born.

This guy is an example... born here but has an alliance with far as I am concerned the second he vowed to fight on al-qaeda's side...he lost ALL american rights.

His comment:

Who declares war? Who decides who the 'enemy' is?

My Response:

Greg.. those that talk of KILLING americans, those that talk of a Jihad against AMERICA, those that state their purpose is to harm AMERICA....then they proceed to make plans, build bombs, hijack our planes and blow up our buildings... if you do not consider these people the "enemy" then you are burying your head in the sand.

All you have to do is a simple search on terrorist activity, or terror acts against America, any number of different keys and you can pull up all the info you need to see WHO these people are.

Extremists that have a loyalty to al-qaeda or terror groups that actively work to destroy America ARE the enemy.

You really need to Wake up and understand that it is a real problem and it needs to be dealt with.

People like you try to tie America's hands and feet, blindfold us, then insist we should be able to protect ourselves. It is unrealistic and naive.

Doing a post now on this exact issue.

His Comment:

You either didn't understand, or chose to ignore my question: who declares war and who decides who the enemy is? Could the president tomorrow declare Venezuela the enemy?
My concerns have to do with concentrating too much power in the Executive branch. Try to move beyond the 'We're good/they're bad' mantra and think of this power in say, Hillary Clinton's hands.

My Response:

First off, I did answer, you just didn't "get it", so I will be more specific.

Who declares war? Those that attack America do. Those that sponsor the terroists to enable them to attack us do.

Who decides who the enemy is? The military and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... it IS his job, he was VOTED in as leader of our country in a democratic process called "elections".

If, a BIG if, Hillary Clinton becomes President, then YES, it will be her job to keep us safe, I can only hope that whoever is chosen in the 2008 elections actually cares to do so.

Is that clearer?

The reason I show you this is to point out the mindset of the people that just do not "get it".
From the first time we were attacked on our soil all the way to 9/11, war was declared on us, we simply, FINALLY chose to respond and go after those that attacked and those that facilitated those attacks and swore to facilitate future attacks.

People are so worried about the President having too much "power", they simply try to ignore the possibility that perhaps the President and our military might just need all the power and tools to fight an enemy the likes of which we have never had to personally deal with before.

I stand by my comment and my belief that if an American citizen swears allegiance to a terror orginization thats sole purpose is the destruction of America, they have forfeited their "rights" as far as I am concerned.

That includes people like Padilla, which as I pointed out yesterday, with his criminal record and history of violence, should be handled as if he is a danger because he IS a danger and that IS based on his prior record and acts.