http://etherzone.com/2003/loef102703.shtml
LET'S SUPPOSE LIBERALS ARE RIGHT
BUT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS
By: John Loeffler
Liberals have been right about the Neo-con pretexts for the Iraq war. Why on www.antiwar.com there has been a feeding frenzy for months now as lie after Neo-con lie about the war has been exposed.
Liberals are right. Saddam wasn’t really an imminent threat nor was Iraq directly involved with 9/11, which attack simply acted as a catalyst for activating the Neo-con invasion plans, which had been plotted months before under an ambitious enterprise called the Project for the New American Century.
Liberals are right about the dangerous precedents the War on Terror are setting, especially about the fuzzy definitions of what constitutes an "enemy combatant" and the fact one’s constitutional rights can be swept away just by mere accusation that one is such, without even the opportunity to prove that one is not.
Liberals are right that everything from freedom of speech to private property is endangered by the new provisions of Homeland Security and that American citizens are the targets and not terrorists.
Liberals are right about all of these things but for the wrong reasons and as such are as much as part of the problem as the Neo-cons are. Bear with me liberals. All you have to lose is your freedom.
Modern liberalism has evolved into an amalgam of special interest groups basting in a sauce of conflicting relativist values, all driven by the same big money interests liberals claim to hate. As such it has been sowing the seeds of its own self destruction for some time but liberals fail to grasp this because to them truth is a personal thing and never universal or constant, which belief blurs their ability to think along a clear logic path and to see the long-term implications of their actions.
To wit, let’s suppose that liberals succeed in defeating the appointment of all the "strict constructionist" judges President Bush would like to see on the bench, especially in the Supreme Court. This eliminates judges, who want the law to be enforced – especially the Constitution -- as it is written rather than as any controlling political party or philosophy would like it to be. Viva judicial activism!
Now let’s suppose that the Constitution really is a "living, breathing document," which doesn’t mean what it says but can be re-interpreted to say what we want it to mean. But why stop there? Let’s just apply that to all laws.
Let’s suppose liberals fulfill their decades-long dream and bludgeon the Second Amendment to death and the right to bear arms is nullified. Oh what rapturous joy there would finally be in Mudville!
After all guns kill people and since the Constitution is living and breathing, "shall not be infringed" doesn’t really mean "shall not be infringed" when applied to bearing arms and self-protection. Besides, the long-dead white racist slave owners who wrote the Bill of Rights two hundred years ago couldn’t have possibly imagined that we would be better off being unarmed today. On with the weapons confiscations! Only government can have weapons are government, which liberals assure us, is always good.
Now let’s suppose liberals are really right about the President. It turns out Mr. Bush is a dyed-in-the-wool fascist and one of the worst threats to freedom this country has ever known. One could only wonder what horrors could be lurking in Patriot Act II, III, and IV.
And let’s suppose Mr. Bush or Mr. Ashcroft or an even more rabid successor of theirs actually succeeds in ramming Patriot Act the Terminator through a Congress, which never reads what it’s passing anyway. Deep within its bowels the term "enemy combatant" is redefined to mean anyone who opposes the administration’s policies in the vaguely defined War on Terror, a war against an indefinite enemy, with indefinite outcomes or goals for an indefinite length of time.
Let’s suppose the war on freedom then commences in earnest. Liberal journalists who oppose the War on Terror as they are doing now are accused of aiding and abetting the enemy. As such, they are declared enemy combatants and jailed without due process, without knowing the charges against them or confronting their accusers. They do not receive a speedy trial but languish.
Let’s suppose they cry, "Habeas Corpus!" Ah, but they are enemy combatants and habeas corpus doesn’t apply because "this is wartime" and the Fifth Amendment can be re-interpreted based on the needs of the present rather than the laws of the past. Liberals demonstrated this in bludgeoning the Second Amendment to death.
Let’s suppose their fellow journalists cry "freedom of speech!" Ah but the Constitution is a living, breathing document and freedom of speech doesn’t really mean freedom of speech. Remember that "shall not be infringed" doesn’t really mean "shall not be infringed." It didn’t apply to the Second Amendment and so now it can be stripped from the First Amendment as well.
Let’s suppose that liberal opponents of the Neo-cons begin disappearing off the streets into prisons, becoming America’s first "desaparecidos. " In desperation liberals run to the courts to seek protection from the Neo-cons, only to discover there are no strict constructionists left on the bench, who will enforce the rights of the Constitution as they are written. After all, liberals have already demonstrated that strict constructionism is a bad thing and the judges are now politicos with career tracks so they’re going along to get along.
Let’s suppose that liberals finally realize the system is so rigged against them that the rule of law will not help them since the laws don’t mean anything any more and they are the only ones who can defend themselves against the Neo-cons. But since they bludgeoned the Second Amendment to death and no one has weapons, what will defend them against the terror to come?
Well nothing, I suppose.
LET'S SUPPOSE LIBERALS ARE RIGHT
BUT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS
By: John Loeffler
Liberals have been right about the Neo-con pretexts for the Iraq war. Why on www.antiwar.com there has been a feeding frenzy for months now as lie after Neo-con lie about the war has been exposed.
Liberals are right. Saddam wasn’t really an imminent threat nor was Iraq directly involved with 9/11, which attack simply acted as a catalyst for activating the Neo-con invasion plans, which had been plotted months before under an ambitious enterprise called the Project for the New American Century.
Liberals are right about the dangerous precedents the War on Terror are setting, especially about the fuzzy definitions of what constitutes an "enemy combatant" and the fact one’s constitutional rights can be swept away just by mere accusation that one is such, without even the opportunity to prove that one is not.
Liberals are right that everything from freedom of speech to private property is endangered by the new provisions of Homeland Security and that American citizens are the targets and not terrorists.
Liberals are right about all of these things but for the wrong reasons and as such are as much as part of the problem as the Neo-cons are. Bear with me liberals. All you have to lose is your freedom.
Modern liberalism has evolved into an amalgam of special interest groups basting in a sauce of conflicting relativist values, all driven by the same big money interests liberals claim to hate. As such it has been sowing the seeds of its own self destruction for some time but liberals fail to grasp this because to them truth is a personal thing and never universal or constant, which belief blurs their ability to think along a clear logic path and to see the long-term implications of their actions.
To wit, let’s suppose that liberals succeed in defeating the appointment of all the "strict constructionist" judges President Bush would like to see on the bench, especially in the Supreme Court. This eliminates judges, who want the law to be enforced – especially the Constitution -- as it is written rather than as any controlling political party or philosophy would like it to be. Viva judicial activism!
Now let’s suppose that the Constitution really is a "living, breathing document," which doesn’t mean what it says but can be re-interpreted to say what we want it to mean. But why stop there? Let’s just apply that to all laws.
Let’s suppose liberals fulfill their decades-long dream and bludgeon the Second Amendment to death and the right to bear arms is nullified. Oh what rapturous joy there would finally be in Mudville!
After all guns kill people and since the Constitution is living and breathing, "shall not be infringed" doesn’t really mean "shall not be infringed" when applied to bearing arms and self-protection. Besides, the long-dead white racist slave owners who wrote the Bill of Rights two hundred years ago couldn’t have possibly imagined that we would be better off being unarmed today. On with the weapons confiscations! Only government can have weapons are government, which liberals assure us, is always good.
Now let’s suppose liberals are really right about the President. It turns out Mr. Bush is a dyed-in-the-wool fascist and one of the worst threats to freedom this country has ever known. One could only wonder what horrors could be lurking in Patriot Act II, III, and IV.
And let’s suppose Mr. Bush or Mr. Ashcroft or an even more rabid successor of theirs actually succeeds in ramming Patriot Act the Terminator through a Congress, which never reads what it’s passing anyway. Deep within its bowels the term "enemy combatant" is redefined to mean anyone who opposes the administration’s policies in the vaguely defined War on Terror, a war against an indefinite enemy, with indefinite outcomes or goals for an indefinite length of time.
Let’s suppose the war on freedom then commences in earnest. Liberal journalists who oppose the War on Terror as they are doing now are accused of aiding and abetting the enemy. As such, they are declared enemy combatants and jailed without due process, without knowing the charges against them or confronting their accusers. They do not receive a speedy trial but languish.
Let’s suppose they cry, "Habeas Corpus!" Ah, but they are enemy combatants and habeas corpus doesn’t apply because "this is wartime" and the Fifth Amendment can be re-interpreted based on the needs of the present rather than the laws of the past. Liberals demonstrated this in bludgeoning the Second Amendment to death.
Let’s suppose their fellow journalists cry "freedom of speech!" Ah but the Constitution is a living, breathing document and freedom of speech doesn’t really mean freedom of speech. Remember that "shall not be infringed" doesn’t really mean "shall not be infringed." It didn’t apply to the Second Amendment and so now it can be stripped from the First Amendment as well.
Let’s suppose that liberal opponents of the Neo-cons begin disappearing off the streets into prisons, becoming America’s first "desaparecidos. " In desperation liberals run to the courts to seek protection from the Neo-cons, only to discover there are no strict constructionists left on the bench, who will enforce the rights of the Constitution as they are written. After all, liberals have already demonstrated that strict constructionism is a bad thing and the judges are now politicos with career tracks so they’re going along to get along.
Let’s suppose that liberals finally realize the system is so rigged against them that the rule of law will not help them since the laws don’t mean anything any more and they are the only ones who can defend themselves against the Neo-cons. But since they bludgeoned the Second Amendment to death and no one has weapons, what will defend them against the terror to come?
Well nothing, I suppose.
