Terrorism By Proxy

Commentary by Greg Lewis / NewMediaJournal.US
October 18, 2007

Observing the way Democrats at every level continue to try to undermine America's national interests by any means possible gives us to understand that, deep down, where it really counts, left liberals - including a majority of Democratic state and federal legislators - most assuredly do not have America's best interests at heart. In fact, their insidious tactics make it clear that they're engaged in nothing less than terrorism by proxy.

For starters, there have been their empty (thank God) Congressional resolutions threatening to withdraw support for our troops and their proclaiming that our dramatically revised military strategy in Iraq cannot succeed. That's when, of course, they even acknowledge that such a strategy, in the form of the troop surge, is actually being implemented, let alone that it is proving to be highly successful. Far be it from Democrats to acknowledge that it might be that just such a show of America's commitment to the cause of Iraqi freedom as the troop surge represents was precisely what was needed to tip the balance on the part of Iraqis toward a democratic society.

There's also the now-defunct Nancy Pelosi-led attempt to get Turkey to stop assisting the U.S. in its military efforts in the Middle East by means of a resolution condemning as genocide the massacre of ethnic Kurds by Turks nearly 100 years ago. When Congress tried to initiate such a resolution seven years ago, then-President Clinton called House Speaker Dennis Hastert and asked him to scotch the resolution in the national interest. Hastert, who, unlike Pelosi, had no intention of undermining what America stood for, agreed, and the resolution was buried.
The fact that Democrats are obligated to placate radical leftists from such organizations as Move On (MoveOn.org) and Media Matters (MediaMatters.com), who exert so much power over the Democrat agenda because of their McCain-Feingold-enabled fundraising prowess, is becoming more and more transparent with every news cycle. While Hillary Clinton has seemed to boast that she was instrumental in founding the George Soros-funded Media Matters, it is quite possible that, given the ability of internet sleuths to dig up and expose such potentially damaging (at least for most Americans, who thirst for a return to something resembling cultural and political normalcy) connections, it may be that this one, and several others, might come back to bite Hillary in the butt as her campaign gets serious. One can certainly hope.

Then, of course, there's the ongoing issue of whether Federal intelligence agencies have the "right" to listen in by means of wiretaps on the communications of known terrorists if said communications pass through the United States on their electronic path from a known terrorist in, say, Iran, to another known terrorist in, for instance, Sudan.

It appears as though Democrats want to put some archaic, pre-wireless-global-communications-networks limitations on said exchanges, arguing that there's the possibility that the phone call or e-mail in question, since it may possibly pass, after all, through U.S. communications networks, might be intended, Heaven forbid, for an American citizen, thus the unimaginably remote possibility that such a communication might violate that hypothetical American's civil rights.

Never mind that there has not surfaced a single instance of such a "violation" of an American's civil rights as a result of the Patriot Act, nor that there's even the remote possibility of such an occurrence in the future. And never mind that never has such a daunting limitation been placed on U.S. intelligence efforts in our history.
To this point: Legitimate evidence has never been something Democrats scramble to trot out to defend their pernicious positions, as witness Al Gore's attempted assault on our intelligence through his mockumentary, "Earth In the Balance."

The very fact that Al Gore joins Yasser Arafat in the Nobel Peace Prize Winners' Circle (does there exist another organization - aside from the UN, of course - so corrupt as that which picks the Nobel Prize winners?) should certainly comfort the leftists who don't understand that Gore's Nobel prize should have been awarded in the Fiction category. Indeed, Doris Lessing, God bless her 87-year-old leftist soul, simply doesn't measure up to Al Gore when it comes to fabricating reality. Thank goodness a London, England, court recently ruled that Gore's celluloid opus could be shown to his city's students only if the showing was accompanied by the presentation of material that made it clear to students that Gore, in his movie, was, shall we say, blowing smoke.

To get back to the point, which, I believe, was legislation regarding communications under the Patriot Act: Difficult as it is to believe, many Democrats seem to argue that potential violations of the rights of Americans to communicate freely with whomever they want, no matter what their intentions vis a vis America's national security might be, should somehow trump the safety of all the Americans who might suffer harm at the hands of the very terrorists whose communications it would be a good thing to monitor, again, in the interests of protecting all Americans against future terrorist attacks.

Finally, and most recently, there is New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's attempt to force down the throats of his (and my) state's citizens an executive ruling that would enable illegal aliens of whatever stripe to procure drivers' licenses and thus be able, not only to vote in state and federal elections, but to pass among us as "citizens" with pretty much the same rights as those of us who were born here and those who have become citizens through legally immigrating to this country and following the rather rigorous legally prescribed path to citizenship.

Spitzer, as you may know, recently issued an edict, based on a misguided New York State Supreme Court ruling, that no longer would it be necessary for those applying for a New York State driver's license to provide a valid social security number to be eligible to be granted driving privileges in New York.

Spitzer's rule-by-fiat foray has fomented nothing short of a rebellion among those charged with upholding state law. County clerks in New York state have pretty much unanimously agreed that they (and, by extension, their employees) will not abide by Spitzer's ruling, and that they will continue to insist that those applying for driving privileges in New York State will still be obligated to present legitimate social security numbers in order to be granted said privileges.

What these state employees recognize is something along the lines of, "What's at stake here is that once you have a driver's license you're pretty much home free when it comes to being able to vote in New York state and to be able to accumulate benefits the like of which those who will most probably take advantage of Spitzer's governance by fiat could not imagine in their wildest dreams, and we're not willing to be complicit in our state's governor's attempted disruption of the legitimate immigration process."

I'm speaking, of course, primarily of refugees from former president Vicente Fox's Mexico. But I'm also speaking of Islamist terrorists, who, before they ascend to that "Great Islamic Whorehouse In the Sky" - I believe the operative reward for achieving martyrdom remains, among Islamists in the know, being allowed to violate 72 virgins in the afterlife - that is promised them if they die as martyrs to the cause of Islamic Imperialism, are rather more likely to find a somewhat less rigorous path to glory in such executive edicts as that issued by Spitzer, who, by his actions, becomes, for the moment at least, this week's terrorist by proxy.