How is it possible that the majority of the real enemies to our society are American citizens. Maybe I am over the top here when I refer to them a American citizens. They don't act like citizens of a country that is at war when they use any possible tool that they can think of that will bring this country to ruin.
How is it that the New York Times can release secret documents knowing that it will cause harm to our national security? There is a law that forbids this but the paper pays no attention it. The Times feels that it is more important that the article bring harm to the President than any responsibility it has for a nations security. If the information causes thousands of deaths to our citizens and troops, it doesn't matter. What is important here is this secret information can be used as a tool to destroy and or cause harm our government.
The question still remains are these individuals American citizens. Those that expose secrets, deliberately misquote what the President says and falsify events to advance an agenda that is in direct opposition to our national security are, I my opinion, not American citizens. They are not patriots. They do not have the best interests of this country at heart. They are not just the loyal opposition to those in power, their agenda is to destroy anything or anybody that is in opposition to their view of the world.
I have read many national pundits that say we can't question someone else's patriotism. They say if someone has a different opinion on the war or national security, that's their belief and we must respect it. Why is it that nobody is ready to step forward and say what they really think. We all know the rhetoric coming from congress, on a daily basis, is un-American and unbecoming of an American citizen. Maybe the problem is there is still enough people in this country that remember Joe McCarthy and don't want to be labeled as a disciple of McCarthy looking for liberals, anti-Americans, instead of communists under every rock.
It not just politics as usual either. When the Iraqi election was just getting started on Thursday, the New York Times came out with a story about thousands of fake ballots that were intercepted at the border coming from Iran. The intent of this story was to give the impression that the voting was bogus, fraudulent, because so many of ballots were counterfeit. This took place right away on Thursday in the morning addition.
But guess what, the story was false. That never took place, there were no illegal ballots, but the news wires picked it up and it spread world wide as being fact. The Times said it was a mistake when in reality it was a planted story to discredit the Iraqi elections and the Bush administration. The New York Times knowingly ran a false story item.
The Iraqi elections were historic. It is unprecedented in history that an event such as this could have taken place in such a short time. It made head lines for one day and then it was news as usual with the NSA secret that was released by the Times which dominated the front pages for the rest of the week. Did the Times think that maybe it shouldn't release what they must have known was a secret, and that maybe by releasing this to the world it would endanger national security? This story was a diversion to reflect peoples attention away from the success of the Iraqi elections.
The agenda item that must be adhered to is to discredit the President as much as possible. Running positive stories of the election in Iraq was not part of the agenda. Failure is the driving force here, not victory. There is no such thing as national security or pride in country and self to do the right thing in time of war. The main objective is the opportunity to grab power when it presents itself.
The New York Times is known as the 'Gray Lady'. Isn't It sad the the Gray Lady, that has been the leading news organization in the world for decades, has become a whore for the socialist Democratic left in this country.
Bottom line then is we seem to have as many enemies inside this country masquerading as American citizens and patriots, as we do Islamafists from the outside, and they all want the same thing, to destroy America as we know it.
The American Democratic socialist left sees no problem in aiding the efforts of terrorist by giving them as much information about the operation of our government as they can in their war on this country and all western civilization.
Can we make a distinction between what patriotism means and who that meaning actually fits and who it doesn't? You damn right we can and must.
Everyone has to make a choice as to where they stand on national security, freedom of speech, democracy and foreign policy among other American ideals. You can't have it both ways. It's either victory for America or defeat. Which do you prefer? Which one will help you sleep at night?
No comments:
Post a Comment