Have we gone too far in our war against Terror?

To answer this question we must first understand the term terrorism. Otherwise, how are we to determine if we have gone "too far" with anti-terroristic measures. Terrorism, as defined by Webster, is:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
This definition brings many questions to the debate at hand. For one, is the success of terrorism predicated on the destruction of property? From the definition, it is actually dependent on intimidation created by the threat of violence and destruction. Therefore, by intimidating our country, have the terrorists already achieved their goal? It is a very interesting question, and I believe I have a very interesting answer. To say that terrorist pose no threat to our country, since there have been no serious attacks since 9-11, is simply false. There are "attacks" on a daily basis. Threats are a form of terrorism, and in many cases, the damage they do is similar to the damage done by a physical attack. For this reason, I say the threat is very real, and the danger posed is equally real. The question of going to far to stop terroristic activities is actually laughable. Our society has become so entrenched, and so based upon personal gratification, the idea of sacrificing for the good of the country has become almost extinct. The cries of "you are violating my rights", and "free speech", and even "you can not racially profile to ensure security" have become a large part of our societal debate on terrorism. Imagine if the prevalent attitude of today would have been around in the 1940's to the same degree that it currently exists, what would have happened in Europe during WWII? I don't dislike the German language, but I am certainly glad that our forefathers sacrificed their liberties to defeat the evil that existed during their time. In my opinion, you can never do "too much", or go "too far" to defeat evil. The only reason we have our freedoms is the fact that those befor us have sacrificed to help us keep them. Do you want your children, and their children, to be free, or do you want them to grow up in a world where terrorists rule with intimidation? We can never go too far when terror is concerned, in fact, do not feel that we have gone far enough. "Ask not what your country can do for you....".

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Enough with the fascism talk

After browsing the many blogs and websites on the internet dedicated to politics and news, I have come to multiple conclusions. For one, there is a very high degree of hate and venom on both sides of the political spectrum, and the idea of a moderate is becoming extinct. That said, one of my conclusions really bothered me concerning the political climate of today, and it stems from the use of hate speech. In fact, I was appalled by the racial slurs that riddled almost every sight, primarily the liberal leaning sites. Considering these facts, I probably should not be surprised by the rampant over use, and misuse, of a term that I came across on approximately 99 percent of the left leaning sites when the Bush administration came up. This term is fascism, and I was astounded by the number of people that use the word with no apparent knowledge of its meaning. The term fascist, as defined by Webster is one that partakes in the system known as fascism. So, I looked up the word fascism, and it was defined as follows:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Did I miss an announcement regarding the government? Are we really controlled by a dictator now, or do the majority of those using the term have absolutely no idea what it means? Looking even deeper into the definition, we see that a fascist is one on that forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism. If that were the case in the United States, then how are all of these people openly criticizing the current administration? Furthermore, how do these people explain the fact that the opposition party has control of the House and Senate? Once again, the far left has decided that facts are not important when an attempt to further one’s agenda is taking place. Finally, emphasizing aggressive nationalism and racism is listed. If this were the case in the United States, would millions of illegal immigrants still be living hear? All that I ask is that people think before they speak, what do you think?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Where is the outrage?

Just another case of hypocrisy in action from the mainstream media and those far left of center in the United States. The Massachusetts legislature finally voted, on the last day possible, to allow the people of their state to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution. That may seem like a non-issue to many, but the fact that they considered not voting on the issue, effectively killing it, is the problem. According to the constitution of Massachusetts, the state legislature is bound to cast a vote on issues concerning amendments to the state document, and the less than conservative State Supreme Court even affirmed this fact as a group of politicians, including the Governor elect of the state, Deval Patrick, lobbied to let the issue die without a vote. In effect, these politicians were attempting to by-pass the will of the people, and ignore the constitution they swear to uphold to further their own agenda. This is disturbing considering the willingness of the mainstream media to label the President of the United States, or anyone they disagree with, a fascist, but turning their head to these acts of subversion. Where is the outrage? Where are the countless articles calling the governor elect a fascist for ignoring the constitution and the people to further his views? I for one do not think the governor elect is a fascist, but if the definition put forth by the mainstream media regarding fascism, when relating to people they disagree with, is to be used across the board for people of both parties, he falls into that category. Just one more case of hypocrisy in the media, especially the print media. What's good for the gooses is still good for the gander....isn't it?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture