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.
|