Al-Qaida voice in Washington, D.C.

Gotta love the first amendment. We even let those whom we consider beyond the pale to have their say.

May it ever be so in this nation.

 

How is merely broadcasting programs, even if they are off the wall, aiding the enemy? And do we really want the government cracking down on speech that we disagree with?

 

Sometime, somewhere, there is going to be some event that will finally wake people up and they will realize that our "rights" can (and at this point probably will) be destroyed.

When that time comes, yelling about "rights" will ring hollow because we have excused all sorts of abuses because of "their rights", and haven't had the guts or wisdom, (or either) to demand that all these "rights" carry with them the attendant "responsibility".

I can just imagine the furor had Goebbles (sp) decided to set up his propaganda network in the USA back in early '40's since we had "Freedom of speech rights" back then also !

You consider al-Jazeera just another liberal voice that we can JUST disagree with? But then, if so, you just may be correct considering some of the garbage the MSM puts out!

Tolerence is a marvelous attribute, as long as common sense prevails; a characteristic sorely lacking in today's PC environment.

 

And once the government decides what is aiding and what is not aiding the enemy, where does it stop? Perhaps we have an administration in the future that decides that conservative talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al, are "aiding the enemy". Or another administration may decide that churches that preach against homosexuality are "aiding the enemy".

Tread very carefully in what you ask the government to do for you. Tread carefully.

 

Although I am not thrilled with the idea of there being an Al-Qaida voice in DC, I must say that I agree here with Ken. If the gov't steps in on this issue it opens up the door for all kinds of stuff in the future.

 

Yes, we should tread very carefully, but you seem like you don't want to tread at all. These people aren't pie in the sky that we will win with our love, kumbayah, as you seem to hint at repeatedly on various threads, whether it be discussing interrogation techniques, their "freedom" to broadcast propaganda from our shores, or whatever. Every time we extend them unlimited use of our own Constitution against us within our own borders, they gain a stronghold.

But never fear, your mindset seems to be running the gambit through the halls of Congress and the politically correct media - all to the glee of our enemies.

No doubt we will all one day look back in amazement that some were so unconcerned about the threat to our national security some of us posted naive posts on discussion boards.

Unless people wake up to the fact that our enemy is real, is engaged in many fronts against us even within our own borders, we may win some battles, but we will not ultimately win the war.

 

I'll willingly take the chance that we can be secure just as much without violating our God-given and constitutional rights as we can be by establishing a dictatorship to keep us "safe".

 

Ken, you are taking a great lesson from the liberals now! "When you can't refute the actual points, change the subject and chase a few rabbits."

Nobody has even hinted (at least IMHO) that we should "establish a dictatorship"! (You're usually much better than this.)

You're talking a whole nother ballgame with this attitude!

 

Nope rsr, what's happened to Ken is that he has remembered what freedom really is, and it isn't what Bush has been preaching and pushing.

 

Actually it's called casting your pearls before swine. That's exactly what we are doing when we let the enemy use our Constitutional rights against us in our own country. Remember the end of the verse, "lest they turn and rend you."

 

The enemy you refer to was manufactured to get just that type of response LE. Ken's got a taste of freedom, savor and remeber it Ken.

 

And if our gov't don't soon get with the program, and our citizens wake up, we will be "rendered"!

 

And will all be moot once martial law is declared after the next big terrorist attacks which will probably be in multiple cities. Poncho, I know that you know the Executive Orders have been put in place for several decades and you know they kick in under Martial Law.

 

Our government, Has been with the program since the banks figured out how to take control of it from the American revolutionaries. Recently the program was beefed up under Jimmy Carter and his Trilateral handlers, and lately was beefed up major under Bush and his CFR Trilateral handlers.

 

If a man runs down the street threatening to shoot someone he will be arrested. It isn't a free speech issue. It is a matter of stopping those who threaten the safety of other people.

Anyone who advocates terror against this nation or our allies ought to be taken seriously and punished accordingly.

The right to free speech has never been, and never ought to be, absolute.

After the Civil War the state of Missouri barred anyone who had advocated the cesession from holding an office that invovled public speaking - such as lawyers and even preachers. It wasn't a free speech issue - it was a public safety issue.

Mark Osgatharp