Modern-Day Liberalism: Politicizing our Way of Life

New York City – the “Big Apple,” the social, economic and cultural capital of America. It is also one of the most liberal cities in the nation, right up there with San Francisco. Forty-six of the fifty-one city councilors are Democrats. In fact, the state of New York has gone Democratic in every presidential election save 6 since 1928. That’s why it’s no surprise when the rights of terrorists trump the rights of American citizens, in the Empire City. New York City is a microcosm of what is going on nationwide, as liberals continue to ignore the vast majority of Americans, while they pander to minority groups and victims – including illegals and Islamic extremists.

On May 1, 2010, there was a “foiled” terrorist attack in Times Square. It is being called “foiled,” because the bomb didn’t go off after it was detonated. In reality, this came very close to being a successful terrorist attack. The bomb was detonated, even though it didn’t actually explode, and the suspect was caught on a Dubai-bound plane, on the tarmac at JFK International Airport. So, not only did this guy plant a bomb in a car in the middle of Times Square, but he made it through airport security, past the scrutiny of the no-fly list, and onto a plane headed to the Middle East. Had the bomb actually gone off, injuring many New Yorkers, would the additional efforts by law enforcement have resulted in a successful take-off at JFK? We’ll never know. What we do know is that nobody in New York and nobody in the U.S. government stopped that bomb from exploding in Times Square. We can thank U.S. officials for downplaying the threat, claiming the bomb was unsophisticated.

Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-turned-U.S. citizen, admitted that he planned the attack. The vehicle involved belonged to him. He tried to flee the country immediately afterwards. Yet even with this evidence, Stephen M. Walt, a Harvard professor, claims “his guilt or innocence is ultimately for a jury to decide.” Like any good liberal, he goes on to question why Shahzad wanted to attack us. Walt’s solution to the problem of Islamic extremism is to “lower our footprint as soon as we possibly can.” Thank God there are still Americans willing to stand up for our freedoms, and not roll over as Europe has, in the face of the radical Islamic threat. Even Bob Beckel, former campaign manager for Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign, speculated that the Times Square bomber might be a right-wing militiaman.

Today, the New York Post published an article about an “illegal immigrant with a long rap sheet.” He is being deported, but not before taking $145,000 in taxpayer funds. Apparently, “federal rules only allow local law enforcement to detain suspected illegal immigrants for 48 hours after their criminal cases are resolved.” Since the federal government is failing at every turn to enforce our immigration laws (see: AZ SB1070), it should come as no surprise that Cecil Harvey – an illegal from Barbados (no, not Mexico) – spent 30 days in jail before ICE showed up to collect him. Because of this violation, Harvey will now receive a six-figure parting gift from New York’s taxpayers. I could sit here and blame New York, or the federal judge who ordered the damages, but it’s not their fault. The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of our inept federal government, and their lax attitude toward illegal immigration. Because ICE is unable to transfer illegal detainees within 48 hours, jails are now putting illegals back on the street after the deadline. Does that make you feel safe?

One would think that our federal government is taking enough of our tax dollars that they could easily afford to have dedicated ICE agents do daily pick-ups at all local jails in the country. I mean, Brinks and Loomis Fargo have been doing daily pick-ups for years, with many more stops than we have local jails. The problem here is not financial resources, or personnel resources. The problem is a lack of priority on the part of our president. The problem is that politicians rely on money and public support to be elected, and nobody wants to offend the Hispanic community by enforcing immigration laws. Even worse, is that the Democratic Party survives on promising these special interest groups incredible things, and now they cannot risk losing their support in the future. The “right thing,” America’s best interests, has nothing to do with it.

We cannot afford to politicize issues that affect ALL Americans.

Health care should not be a political issue. It should be about improving our health care system so that more Americans can afford coverage, and insurance companies operate ethically. We should not be creating individual and employer mandates to buy-off insurance companies with increased revenue, while offering free health care to “the poor,” on the backs of the working-class.

Illegal immigration should not be a political issue. We have laws, and it is the sworn duty of all government officials and law enforcement to uphold them. Do we need to reform our immigration system to allow more people to come here legally? Yes. Should people have to wait a decade to bring their spouse or children to America? Of course not. There’s no doubt our system needs to be improved, but we cannot abandon our laws in the meantime.

The War on Terror should not be a political issue. There are Islamic extremists hell-bent on destroying Western culture, and killing “infidels.” We must not only protect ourselves here at home, but destroy this radical extremism wherever it exists. The fact that some in our country have no problem with Iranian president Ahmadinejad calling for the extermination of Israel, or believe that enemy combatants deserve constitutional protections after trying to kill the men and women in our military, is ABSURD!

There are many things to fear in our world. It can be a dangerous place. However, the biggest threat to our freedoms as Americans is not Islamic extremism; it is not high taxes or big government; it is not the health care, cap and trade, financial regulation reform or immigration reform bills; it is not our porous borders; it is not socialists, bad presidents or missing birth certificates.

The biggest threat to our freedoms as Americans is modern-day liberalism. For that is what will allow the rest of our fears to become realities.

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “Modern-Day Liberalism: Politicizing our Way of Life

  1. The biggest threat to the US is jingoistic neocons who want to disregard the constitution and keep stirring up shit in the middle east.

    We are never going to end religious extremism, at least not with bombs. We need to stop messing with Muslim affairs and stop our unconditional support of Israel. Will there still be people who hate us? Of course, but they can be dealt with through proper law-enforcement, customs and immigration procedures.

    As it stands, we are creating far more terrorist than we’re destroying whenever we kill an innocent Afghan, Pakistani or Iraqi citizen.

  2. AJ, I kind of hate even bothering to respond to your comments since you appear to have come on this site solely to offend people.
    Of course people will still hate us because they hate the freedoms we have and the fact that we believe other people in the world should have these freedoms. Does that mean we should stop trying to do the right thing and help other nations (I guess you’d like us to withdraw from Afghanistan and abandon women and girls to the nuts who blow up their schools, throw acid in their faces and wish to keep them as mere property)? No.
    How are our “proper law-enforcement, customs and immigration procedures” being enforced now? Not so well as far as I can see.
    And you are an ancharist? Kind of sounds like a cop out but be what you want to be. Doesn’t sound like “proper law enforcement” is something high on the list of ancharists to support.

  3. Mel,

    I too am angered by the inability of our federal agents to perform their duties. A number of years ago I remember we had 11 illegals detained by the locals but they were released because the feds “didn’t have room for them.” That is an excuse? And some might argue that they weren’t violent criminals or terrorists but that is not even the point. They were illegally in the US (or non-citizen immigrants in double speak) and that should be enough. Since they couldn’t be held longer we’ll never know what their criminal backgrounds or intentions are.
    I’ll never understand how something so simple can be so difficult.
    Thanks for all your posts, AndyB, NH.

  4. AJ, you need to read about the Barbary Wars and get back to me. We haven’t meddled in Muslim affairs without them first targeting us. And, I’m sorry, but I have a hard time believing your argument after nearly 3,000 innocent souls died on 9/11 because the terrorists who wanted to take America down didn’t have the balls to issue a military challenge.

    Andy, I agree with you…also, Mark wrote this one. I’ve been gone all day. 😉

  5. You know what? Fuck all you boneheaded, nationalistic, belligerent fucking faggots and dykes. I hope you all get AIDS and hepatitis, before you get blown up by Muslims who hate the US for the policies that you endorse. I’m done with you fucking idiots.

  6. The problem with anarchists is…it’s been tried before and doesn’t work. When you have a governmental vacuum of “no government”…you usually end up with a tyrant and no freedom in short order…because someone or some group always rushes in to “take care of the lawlessness”.

    That aside…I never understood how legitimate defense of the nation, the one responsibility our Founders gave the Federal Government (not providing everyone with free shit robbed from the treasury–like healthcare), is “unconstitutional.” That’s the argument of people who just don’t like the objective notion that there’s a moral difference between “murder” and “self-defense”.

  7. A.J. Is the vivid representation of the “Liberal” & tolerant left wing, Thanks for showing to us all what the “liberals” are made of!!

  8. AJ says he is in an anarchist. Anarchy only works when the people living under it agree to live that way. Find me any time in history where that has happened?

    As Chris pointed out someone always steps in when there is no governement. That person as Chris said is usually a tryant.

    So AJ show us all an example of an anarchy where everyone under that system was totally good to go? Every person agreed to live that way and nobody banded together to protect their mutual interests. In effect, that is what government is supposed to be. A banding of people to protect their mutual interests.

  9. “How are our “proper law-enforcement, customs and immigration procedures” being enforced now? Not so well as far as I can see.”

    To be fair to the ICE, do they have the staffing levels to do the jobs they are dispatched to do?

    Human capital is a finite resource. People in law enforcement have to pick their battles. If I have to choose between picking up someone and sending them back vs. using that same employee to help take down a human smuggling ring, then the choice is easy.

  10. Leftists cannot handle differing opinions and must wish death on those with offer an alternative to their drivel.

  11. “You know what? Fuck all you boneheaded, nationalistic, belligerent fucking faggots and dykes. I hope you all get AIDS and hepatitis, before you get blown up by Muslims who hate the US for the policies that you endorse. I’m done with you fucking idiots.” – AJ

    With smooth talk like that who can resist? 😉 Hehe.
    AndyB, NH.
    And yes Mel, I meant Mark but obviously I had Mel on the brain.

  12. Can someone please explain the post above to me? I clicked on it and it made no sense. maybe I didn’t delve too deep but it just sounded like gibberish.
    Thanks, AndyB, NH.
    John, I understand that they only have so many for so much but that is a top down issue as far as I am concerned. Taking care of the little things before they become big things.
    Brains a little dead. Started exercising again. Bleah.
    AndyB, NH.

  13. Andy, I don’t understand that post, either. I tried contacting whoever runs that blog and never got a response, but they frequently link us on their “political smackdown” posts.

  14. Man, I do think that our meddling in everyone’s affairs has stirred up hatred in the middle east. I think its sort of nearsighted to not take the implications of our actions into account (how many dictators like Saddam have we put into power because they happened to fit with our agenda at the time, only to have it blow up in our faces years later?).

    From what I’ve read, the founding fathers were supportive of a non-interventionalist foreign policy. At the very least they were leery of entangling alliances with other countries. I’d say that we’ve strayed quite far from that path, preferring to try and force our particular brand of freedom onto countries that may or may not be ready for it. If congress wants war, then fine, they have to legally declare it. This has not officially happened since WW2. Our congress doesn’t have the fortitude to put their own asses on the line, but they don’t mind sending troops out without declaring war. Its a double standard, in my book.

    But back to the point, war unites the people, it makes us more willing to give up our rights “for the cause”, and it makes it easier for big government to do what it does best (steal our money and invade our privacy). Neither liberals nor conservatives see ending the war as an option.

    Freedom is not a brigade of troops on every corner, having to walk through metal detectors, showing your papers at every turn, and holding a gun to everyone’s head saying YOU’RE FREE NOW, YOU BETTER ENJOY IT, SCUM! Freedom is me not telling you what to do and you not telling me what to do. We can interact or not interact, and we carry guns in case someone decides they need to take our rights away. As I’ve asked on many occasions, when did it become okay to be the one to throw the first punch? Aren’t we supposed to be civilized?

    AJ, you started off okay and then turned into a dick. Way to ruin it for anyone with a differing opinion.

  15. Mike,
    You make some points but I believe people would hate us if we did nothing so there is a no win situation. If our country stands for freedom (and it should) we should spread that freedom to the 4 corners. I think EVERY person should have the freedoms we take for granted although I know it is not likely that can happen (doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try).
    On the other hand if a country’s people are not willing to fight and work for their own freedom I don’t think we alone can help them.
    It’s not easy. I also believe we at home are giving up too many of our own rights in the name of security. I recall a lib teacher in HS saying “You can have Law or you can have Order but you can’t have both at the same time.”
    Okay, I am rambling and late for one of my jobs. Got to go.
    AndyB, NH.

  16. I recall a lib teacher in HS saying “You can have Law or you can have Order but you can’t have both at the same time.”

    Huh? This person is a teacher? That statement makes no sense. We have order because we have laws, ethics, mores, and norms. We have civilization because people control their behavior.

  17. John,
    Her point (I think) was that we can have absolute order by tapping everyone’s phones, kicking down doors and otherwise ignoring people’s rights (crime was pretty low under Stalin and his like because people were too afraid that the KGB was hearing everything and would take them away) or we can have the rule of law which means that inevitably some guilty will go free and people will get hurt. That is what I took it to mean. Generally she was a bit of a nut too but then what teacher in HS wasn’t (in the eyes of a teenager)?
    Does that make more sense? I think it is arguing against absolutes. Sort of like when I hear someone say “if this bill saves only one life…” If that is the case it is a piss poor law. Not every life can be saved nor every crime prevented and to try and do that 100% is impossible and will waste more money and resources that could have a better effect elsewhere.
    AndyB, NH.

  18. Mike, the US has been an “interventionalist” nation for a long time. The CIA was meddling in other countries’ affairs at least as far back as the 1950’s. I will agree that is wrong; however, to say that Muslims are trying to mass murder us now because we’ve been meddling in their affairs is absolutely preposterous.

    The fact is that Muslims are trying to kill us because we’re infidels. We refuse to bend over and accept Sharia and conversion to Islam, so they’ll either force acceptance at the end of a gun (or bomb) and, if we continue to refuse, they’ll pull the trigger.

    I totally agree that certain issues need to be left up to the nations haggling over them. Others, however, we absolutely do need to stick our nose into. Hitler counted on the US not wanting to get involved in another major European conflict, and if we hadn’t gotten involved, Europe would have certainly fallen and eventually, America would have, too.

    Most of those who are against the Iraq war now like to point out that Saddam wasn’t a major world power like Hitler was. Here’s an 0ft-forgotten factoid: when he started out, neither was Hitler. After WWI, Germany was disarmed and demilitarized; the Nazis started WWII with a tiny spark when Hitler ordered his troops to take back the Rhineland…and the soldiers rode in on bicycles, many without loaded guns because there wasn’t enough ammunition to go around.

    Hitler started off with much less than Saddam did and he ended up nearly taking over the whole of Europe. Appeasement only helped him on his quest. We gave Saddam eight years to abide by the terms of the Gulf War surrender and he continually refused. What else were we supposed to do?

  19. I would agree with Mike above that Congress should declare war; that has become part of this country’s problem with our leaders–there’s no moral, ethical, or personal responsibility reflected from our leaders.

    If our leaders feel that there is a military solution to the Middle East problem–then they need to pull themselves up by the boot-straps, make that decision, and discuss strategy.

    So far we have had nothing but vague “this could be a long struggle” type of talk. Dragging it out only benefits one group of people–politicians–because they can keep us arguing with each other over miniscule picky-anty crap.

    Do it! Or, don’t do it! But decide! Anything else is abuse not only to We the People–but to our soldiers as well who deserve better.

  20. …and just in case there were any questions…I tend to agree with Mel. They hate us because we’re infidels and have been at war with the West long before we “occupied” their lands.

    I sympathize with the “bring our troops home” and defend the homeland types…but, that won’t do us much good in an age where we’re no longer dealing with bows and arrows–but weapons that can cross oceans and borders.

    If we lived on seperate planets with no ability to harm each other I’d say fine…leave them alone. But, that, unfortunately, is not the world we live in.

  21. Mel, we put Saddam in power in the 70’s because the former secular regime was not allowing British Petroleum to control all the oil in the region. It was a CIA sponsored coup. I don’t know what we ought to have done (since we can’t undo that part of it), but since they never found any WMD’s during Bush2, maybe we should not look into jumping pel-mel into another war based on assumptions and unfounded accusations. Maybe we should stop forcing regime changes.

    There are certainly extremist muslims who simply want to kill the infidels, just as there are extremist christians who would love to see all muslims become charcoal in the desert. We have those people on earth for sure. But to say that our constant intervention has not stirred up some anti-american sentiment amongst people who would have otherwise left America alone, I think that is preposterous. Its tribalism at its most basic. If China started shipping their troops over here to have us accept their way of life and political system, I think that you and I would be part of the insurgency, would we not?

  22. I’ve been sitting this out for a brief spell. I do see mike’s points.

    Our intervention seems to be more driven by protecting out self interest vs. protecting the common good. China overruns Tibet and we do nothingh. Zaire collapses into civil war and we back off there. Rwanda had its genocide and we sat that out too.

    The message here is your nation better have something we need or we better do a lot of business there or forget it.

    I understnad when any nation seeks to protects its interests. But when that happens, call it what it is. Being a dictator isn’t enough to warrant a war. Being one sitting on an ocean of crude oil is.

    I believe the inconsistency is part of the problem too.

  23. Mike, you know I love you, but you’ve got your facts about Saddam wrong. Saddam was General Hassan’s “vice president” (at least the Iraqi equivalent of such a position) and, just as veeps do here in America, set the stage to take power when Hassan’s health began to fail. Saddam actually nationalized the Iraq Petroleum Company, he had no intention of ever allowing the West (which already owned the company) to control Iraq’s oil. The only coup was in the mid-1960’s and it was led by the Ba’ath party to overthrow the religious leadership. We did aid Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980’s (remember Iran Contra? Yeah, that’s one of those things that even conservatives didn’t appreciate Reagan for despite the fact that we loved the man.). The CIA may have helped him in his quest to take Hassan’s place, but America did not put him in power. He started on that path long before America entered the fray.

    There is a difference between acting in defense of ourselves and our allies and a hostile takeover. When Japan bombed us, we retaliated with no mercy. When the Viet Cong started killing people by the hundreds of thousands to force communism on a nation that didn’t want it, we intervened (although didn’t have the stomach to really declare war and do what needed to be done). Muslims have been attacking Americans since the days of our nations’ infancy.

    Back when Thomas Jefferson became the president, America was paying millions a year in tribute to the Pasha of Tripoli and other Muslim leaders (referred to then as “Musselmen”). We paid tribute to fend off the barbary pirates from those countries, who raided coastal towns, pillaged, raped, murdered and kidnapped Americans . Jefferson never agreed with paying tribute and felt we needed to start fighting the pirates. He asked the Pasha’s emissary why they raided a country that hadn’t harmed them, and the emissary told him that the Qur’an gave all good Musselmen the right to take everything from infidels.

    As soon as Jefferson entered office, he declared war and killed them until they agreed to stop the raids. Then, during the war of 1812, the Muslims figured we were busy fighting the British so they started raiding and demanding tribute – including back pay – again. We fought them again and soundly defeated them.

    It has hardly changed since. Muslims targeted Americans all over the Middle East regardless of who they were. Iranians stormed the US embassy in 1977 and held the people inside hostage for 444 days. Why? Because America is the “great satan” and as infidels had no place in Iran – and they were peaceful diplomats. That had nothing to do with Americans meddling in their affairs.

    Muslims will try to kill us no matter what we do becase we’re infidels. That will never change.

    As for the idea of the Chinese invading, they wouldn’t be invading to protect themselves or to punish us for invading another country the way Saddam did TWICE. They wouldn’t be taking control to stop us from mass-murdering an entire ethnic group. We have not done those things.

  24. “Muslims will try to kill us no matter what we do becase we’re infidels. That will never change.”

    I think you mean some Muslims? I don’t think every single Muslim on Earth wishes to destroy every single non Muslim on Earth.

    I’ve worked with Muslims and had them as neighbors too. On the whole, they are grateful for what this nation provides. Sharia law doesn’t serve their purposes.

  25. The biggest prolemwith america is that the federal government is afraid to deal with real problems so they attack religious groups & gays.

  26. I’m only 17 years old and I still have the courage to deal with alot stuff people wouldn’t imagine. Why can’t the federal government get the courage to deal with some real issues like poverty, crime, and drugs. Things like that is what is destroying america. I might live in the United States Virgin Islands but we still deal with alot of the same things that happen on the mainland it’s just isn’t as bad but it still affects our communities very greatly.

  27. The biggest problem with america is that the federal government is afraid to deal with real problems so they attack religious groups & gays.

  28. NAIDA thank God we have some sane among the young. Keep being courageous and speading the word, use your power and energy to teach….it will make such a difference.

    Thank you for your comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s