Home | Notes
Archives | Search
Links | About
The America Show
Jesus and Mordy
Watch Video Now
Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco
by Burt Prelutsky
by Mark Steyn
and National Insecurity
Nevin Jr. [writer,
law enforcement] 7/27/06
is continuing to mount but it seems clear that modern liberalism
is at odds with national security. Whether they sit on the
Supreme Court, occupy a seat in Congress, or publish some of
our nation’s largest newspapers, several high profile
liberals have significantly impeded our ability to wage the
War on Terror, and we may be less safe as a result.
Michael Nevin Jr. - Contributor
Nevin Jr. is a 3rd generation California law enforcement
officer and freelance writer. Mike's writing explores
many topics ranging from the War on Terror to issues
facing America's police officers. Mike is a contributing
writer for several Internet websites including ChronWatch,
American Daily, Renew America.us, and Men's News Daily.
He can be contacted at email@example.com. [go
to Nevin index]
In a breathtaking
decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a liberal majority on the Supreme
Court held that the president does not have authority
to order that terrorists be tried before military commissions.
In a case where the court should not have had jurisdiction if
the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 were to be taken seriously,
liberal judicial activism has once again reared its ugly head.
Justice Clarence Thomas offered a stinging dissent regarding
the court’s willingness “to second-guess the determination
of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought
to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.” Andrew
McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor,
anticipated such a ruling offering this prescient thought: “Make
no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated
that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda—which no president,
no senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance.”
Applying the Geneva
Conventions to barbarians who recognize no international laws
of war would be laughable if it wasn’t
so reckless. Perhaps Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for
the majority, would allow the Pentagon to take his home via eminent
domain (see: disastrous Kelo decision) in order to house Guantanamo
guests if the prison were to close. After all, shutting down
Gitmo is a high priority in the left’s War on Terror strategy.
And if Stevens is looking for a driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan can
list Osama bin Laden as a reference.
rang out at the New York Times when the Hamdan case was adjudicated.
After all, any effort to rebuff or expose
the efforts of the Bush administration in the War on Terror will
be encouraged by the old gray lady. The top of the fold Times story (“Bank Data is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block
Terror,” 6/23/06) revealing the Terrorist Finance Tracking
Program was the latest in a series of damaging exposes dealing
a hard blow to our clandestine capabilities. Coupled with the
leak involving the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program,
the Times has made it abundantly clear that American national
security will take a back seat to Pulitzer Prize nominations.
It’s unclear, however, if those awards can withstand a
dirty bomb attack. It might be best to keep them locked in an
York Times has no left-wing agenda and
is only interested in exposing matters of “public interest” its
editors and defenders assert. But a closer look can be quite
Take, for instance, Pinch Sulzberger’s recent commencement
address at a New York State University: “You weren’t
supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten
war in a foreign land,” bemoans Sulzberger. He continues, “You
weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we
are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights
of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry;
or the rights of women to choose. You weren’t supposed
to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and
environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain.
You weren’t. But you are. And for that I’m sorry.” Sulzberger
doesn’t write for the Times—he publishes it.
Criticizing the efforts
of the Bush Administration and at the same time besmirching
our military service people is nothing
new to those occupying power on the left. Although he later attempted
to “clarify” his statement, the damage was already
done when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke about his interpretation
of U.S. policy regarding treatment of prisoners. Referring to
a report describing prisoners being subjected to rap music and
isolation, Durbin said, “If I read this to you and did
not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans
had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly
believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags
or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had
no concern for human beings.” Our kidnapped soldiers are
brutalized and beheaded while Gitmo terrorists are subjected
to lyrics from the likes of Snoop Dogg. Something tells me that
Snoop and his cohorts may be getting a bad rap.
When Rep. John Murtha
(D-PA) told a civic group that our Army was “broken, worn out” and “living hand to
mouth,” did he not consider that his statement would be
read by our enemies? Even if he was right—which he isn’t—it
is, at best, an irresponsible comment.
Here’s an inconvenient truth that many liberals fail to
grasp: the biggest threat facing civilization isn’t carbon
dioxide emissions; it’s climate warming via a nuclear detonation.
And our enemies will stop at nothing to achieve this objective
on American soil. CRO
2006 Michael Nevin Jr.