Obama's position on this not only places the United States in greater danger but is also completely and utterly naive, ignorant and frankly, stupid.
Keep in mind that the convicted spiritual mentor of the 1993 WTC bombers, Omar Abdel-Rahman ("the blind sheikh") was defended by radical attorney Lynne Stewart. In Obama's little fantasy world, the blind sheikh was "incapacitated" and therefore rendered harmless by his conviction and imprisonment. The truth of the matter (which exposes Obama's ignorance or naivette) is that with the assistance of attorney Lynne Stewart, Abdel-Rahman continued to wage jihad from behind bars, issuing instructions to his followers in Egypt. Stewart was convicted for the assistance she lent to Abdel-Rahman.
Stewart has a long history of representing extreme radicals and actually supporting the causes of various defendants, including black nationalists, members of the Weather Underground, Mafia figures, and convicted terrorists. She is a proven danger to the country due to her actions yet she received a light sentence (28 months) yet she remained out of jail for a long time due to medical conditions and appeals. The prosecution requested a 30-year prison sentence while the defense requested all charges be dropped based upon freedom of speech constitutionality charges. However US District Judge John Koeltl (a 1994 Clinton appointee -- no big surprise there -- with a history of being an "activist judge") rendered only a 28-month sentence and explained away his refusal to either impose the 30-year sentence or waive jail time entirely as Stewart had requested, by saying during Stewart's long career of representing unpopular clients she had "performed a public service, not only to her clients, but to the nation," but that her actions in this case constituted "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct"
Fortunately, her conviction meant automatic disbarment, and on October 16, 2006, judge John G. Koeltl sentenced Stewart to 28 months in prison. However, as proven by various pro bono defenses of Stewart after her conviction, there are numerous radical liberal attorneys who would do the same thing, if not worse, to intentionally aid and abet terrorists while attempting to veil it in non-existant constitutional rights. And to make matters worse, there are many liberal activist judges on the Federal level (up to and including the SCOTUS) who would rule for the terrorists.
This exemplifies just ONE of the very many flaws in Obama's thinking as well as the 5-4 SCOTUS ruling on Gitmo. And also gives further reasoning why it is imperative he not be elected POTUS. I'm no McCain fan, but frankly Obama's socialistic bent frightens me (and should frighten all Americans). However since the MSM is in his back pocket and so many people have bought into his Messiah-esque persona, he has, at this time, an extemely good chance of being elected.
I may be overly paranoid but when I hear him speak, making all sorts of major and minor gaffes, showing his completely lack of knowledge on information a POTUS needs to know, and exposing his vast inexperience I have a hard time believing that he isn't being "controlled" (for lack of better word) by people behind the scenes a la a Manchurian Candidate. Maybe "controlled" is too strong of a description. Perhaps, in his zealous ambition, he is following the advice and instruction by unamed, nefarious sources (George Soros perhaps or someone/group like him?) who recognize Obama's extreme charisma and speech talents and therefore are exploiting his naiveté for their own intentions and desires.
"The Law enforcement approach equals the Word Trade Center in rubble, the Pentagon damaged and Flight 93 and its passengers scattered across a field in Pennsylvania.
The military approach equals most of al Qaeda leadership dead or captured, 20,000 al Qaeda fighters dead in Iraq, no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 - and a handful of video tapes of Osama bin Laden's ravings being broadcast on al Jazeera.
Which approach to terrorism leaves you feeling safer?"
I AGREE!!!
Let us disband every local, state, and federal police agency in the United States, and replace them with the military. A military "police state" as you advocate, is absolutely the right direction to take.
Not only have there been no attacks on US soil since we invaded Iraq (excluding attacks in Iraq, and on our embassies, which are technically US soil), we have also not been hit by an asteroid; suffered a volcanic eruption; been invaded by aliens; the Yankees have not won a pennant; President Bush remains immune to criticism; no important cities have been hit by hurricanes; and I have not contracted tetanus.
The logic is flawless, and above critique.
Law enforcement has had its Socialist time in the limelight. Now its time for a good, heavy-handed military junta to squeeze the traitors and terrorists out of our suburbs and our cities! Damn evidence! Damn procedure! Did those win us World War 1, World War 2, Korea, or Vietnam? NO! We won those by good old-fashioned Army superiority! It worked there and then, it will work here and now!
Dr. Ted Baehr
Christian Film & TV Commission
Ted,
If you are going to go around being an idiot in public at least don't draw attention to the fact that you are a Christian.
The Church has enough trouble trying to explain away Jeremiah Wright and the various polygamy cults. We don't need you stinking up the place as well.
Ted, two words for ya which shows the huge flaw in your rant: non sequitur.
Furthermore, the application was comparing and contrasting methodologies on the war on terror in regards to direct and indirect dealings with the terrorists. Lem is advocating a proactive approach which is militaristic and agressive in nature as opposed to a law enforcement which is reactive. Hence Lem's apt point that the military approach works better than a law enforcement approach in combatting terrorism. He did not, as far as I can tell, imply nor explicitly state that such an approach is applicable to domestic civillian situations. You made a giant leap of illogic and your rather sarcastic comments does not follow logically Lem's premise. Hence, your snide comments are just a basic form of a non sequitur.
It seems you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Ease up, take a breather, re-read what you wrote and I hope you realize that you missed Lem's point and went into an unnecessary tirade which, frankly, makes little sense and makes you look fairly petty and immature.
Now this assumes this is the real Dr. Ted Baehr. I've seen Dr. Baehr's Movieguide program on FamilyNet (I believe) and he seems much more erudite on the program than how the comment reads. Something about how the comment is worded just doesn't add up in my humble opinion. I could be woefully mistaken but keeping in mind this is the world wide web where anyone can claim to be anybody, it's quite easy to place someone else's name in the name box in the comment section as well as any email and URL. So this "Dr. Baehr" could be the real McCoy but then again he could really be some uber-liberal, long-haired, plastic banana, Burkenstock-wearing, forty-year-old faker still living in his parents a la Jason Alexander in the Brad Paisely music video.
Who knows? I could actually be Rush Limbaugh, John MacArthur or Ted Nugent as far as you know.
Just a thought...
Carl,
You are correct that anyone can claim to be anyone or anything on the 'net.
If you have seen the real Ted Baehr and he is not a fool then the guy who commented here is likely a faker.
I have learned that when anyone throws an argument at you which is complete stupidity that it is pointless to answer them with reason and logic. The effort is wasted on them and just takes up your time and effort.
The best response is to simply mock them and move on.
Dick does, by and large, get one right.
However, I feel compelled to add that he still doesn't get it when making references to "Constitutional protections" when dealing with foreign nationals physically present in U.S. territory.
He fails (or purposely obsfucates), as do many politicians and jurists, to acknowledge that unabridged "Constitutional protections" do not inure to foreign nationals (be they present legally or otherwise) while in U.S. territory.
Commenting by HaloScan
