The well-written article quoted above ends this way:

“In a mind-boggling column for the New York Post last week in which he labeled foreign-born Middle Easterners a potential ” fifth column, ” John Podhoretz wrote: ” Leftist civil libertarians and right-wing anti-government types can do their part … to protect Muslims and Arab-Americans — with a generous display of silence acer travelmate 2350 battery,acer btp-36d1 battery and understanding when it comes to the new surveillance techniques being adopted by law enforcement. Their standard-issue complaints ring hollow at a time of war, when civil liberties must necessarily be curtailed to some degree. ”

“…government has a “right to defend society,” and when under threat, “people will give up all their liberties“ –Newt

The responsibilities of the ‘government’ is CLEARLY spelled out in the Constitution itself. The Constitution is specific about those instances in which Habeas Corpus may be suspended. A phony state of emergency and lies about WMD don’t qualify. Newt’s ‘position’ is typical ‘backward’ thinking that makes of the state an ‘end’ in itself. It’s not.

The Constitution, however, assigns to government but ONE overarching responsibility and, as Jefferson said “… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

The time has come to ‘abolish’ it!! The government, therefore, is NOT the source of our rights. Rather, ‘powers’ exercised by government derive from US! And “US” is not happy with the arbitrary and dictatorial manner in which the Bush administration has not only lied about both Iraq and terrorism, he has failed his ONLY Constitutional responsibility:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (Oath of Office)

Preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States was and remains Bush’s ONLY job. He has not merely failed that, he has worked overtly to subvert the Constitution. Put another way: Bush put his hand on a black book and lied –under oath! Note to Newt: THAT IS HIGH TREASON! In the 18th Century, that was sufficient cause for a hanging.

The subversion of the Constitution was effected –not by alleged ‘terrorists’ –but by Bush and his complicit supporters like Newt Gingrich. Of Al Qaeda and Bush, Bush is the bigger threat! He’s here, on our soil, every day!

Newts are similar to their reptilian cousins however in that they are a nobler and less slimy creature than a Gingrich.

It has got to be between Newt, Limbaugh, Rice or Coulter.

But while effective at evil, he didn’t represent the people who elected him, and wasn’t “good” by and other measure of goodness that I can think of. In short, its like Satan is a good devil.

Also, I keep reptiles and amphibians. I know herps. Gingrich is NO herp.

Actually, he used to be a good politician. Evil, sure.. but good. But it takes a special kind of stupid to say what he just said.

Well sure he was a good politician. Most Republicans are good politicians. When you represent 2% of the people and get 50% of the vote, you are a good politician.

Newt Gingrich is a bad person, but he was a good Republican politician, in that he fooled a lot of dumbass redneck Georgians into voting against their own interests.

The Republican base is dumbass rednecks, who vote against their own interests.

1. Does it compare to the depredations to frontier settlements during the French and Indian Wars in which thousands upon thousands died in relation to a population of 1.25 million in 1750?

2. Does it compare to the internal displacement, cities and towns destroyed and the deaths (military and civilian) during the Revolutionary War?

3. Does it compare to the blockading of our trade, the burning of the White House and the occupation of Washington DC during the War of 1812?

4. How does it compare to the threat to the existence of the United States during the Civil War? The literal secession of the southern states, 620,000 soldiers (North and South) dead and more than 300,000 wounded and an untold civilian death toll.

5. Should we discuss the threat of WWI? Not nearly as much.

6. What about WWII? The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and its occupation of the Aleution Islands and bombardment of shore facilities? The sinking of US commercial shipping by Nazi U-Boats within sight of the coast of the United States? The fact that most of Europe and Asia and their resources had fallen into the hands of fascist governments arrayed against the United States?

7. The Cold War in which two well matched opponents waited in nuclear bomb proof bunkers with the ability to wipe out the population of the entire planet?

Does anything that AQ did prior to the World Trade Tower attacks even come close to these threats? No, not even remotely close. Even the World Trade Tower attack, although horrendous and without adequate justification, never posed a serious threat to the United States. Indeed, with its approximate 5000 members at the time of the attack was a serious nuisance to the US but not a threat. The trade towers attack raised it to a sufficient threat to be squashed.

After the Civil War, the Supreme Court found the suspension of habeus corpus by the president and congress excessive given the threat to the US. After WWII, the Supreme Court found the internment of Japanese Americans unlawful. After Watergate, the depredations of Nixon and his surveillance unlawful. Now with by far one of the mildest threats in terms of the survival of the US, we have a former Congressman saying that it justifies the suspension of all rights.

Hitler invented false threat before the rise of the Nazi’s. Is this really anything more than fear mongering to create a tyrannical president?

The Founding Fathers were obeying what they believed to be a higher calling — they firmly believed that there was something infinitely more important at stake than their own individual lives, and in fact were literally risking their lives in their fight for independence. Had the Revolutionary War not succeeded, it’s quite possible that they would have been tried and found guilty of treason — for which the usual penalty at the time was execution via hanging, drawing, and quartering. Compare this with people like Gingrich who are apparently so desperate to save their own skins that they’d potentially be willing to sacrifice the liberty of everyone else in this country for the faint promise that this will keep them safer as individuals — when anyone in their right mind knows that people who live in a country without civil liberties are potentially in just as much or even more danger from their own leaders than they are from any external threat.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790)

These nutjobs just get nuttier.

I don’t know about you, but there is NO WAY you’ll convince me that it is a good idea to have the honest citizenry disarmed and only criminals and the government with the guns. At this point, I don’t CARE if it’s in the Constitution or not, the way our elected officials have been acting.

Does his statement mean that he has already planned a way to get the people to give up their liberties ?

April 18th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

I know there will be people who disagree with me (and I don’t care), but the Second Amendment is a Collective Right of the People, not an Individual Right of each person. It means that states may have militias (for the purposes of defending their borders), but that would also mean that the Public has the right to decide where those arms will be kept (such as in an armory, accessible only by members of a well-regulated militia).

There is no Individual Right to bear arms in the Constitution.