Politics

Does America "Get It" about Terrorism?

Learn Politics on mps-politics.com. Does America "Get It" about Terrorism? article will help answer your questions on Politics.We at mps-politics.com specialize in Politics. Politics at mps-politics.com provides the most up to date news and articles. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

I have to be honest. It is time to come clean. Though the rising cost of health care was indeed the primary reason my wife and I uprooted our lives and left America, it was not the only one. In very close competition was the issue of terrorism.

We left America on August 1, 2003, and could not leave fast enough. Though health care is the primary reason we cite in our writing for leaving, the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism in America was another motivating factor. Here is what I thought on the day of 9/11 and what I said to my wife at the time:

*America would never adopt strict measures making it illegal to belong to extremist Islamic groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir or others.

*America would never consider outlawing those who advocate the creation of an Islamic state.

*America would never consider compiling a list of websites and bookstores that carry materials which incite hatred and violence in order to catch and punish American nationals and deport others who frequent theses venues.

*America would never consider adopting the policy: “Play by our rules or you have to leave!”

*America would never consider holding INDEFINITELY, if necessary, those who would kill us without charge. Do the words, Guantanamo and the ACLU ring a familiar bell?

*America would never close mosques used as centers for fomenting extremism and would never draw up a list of foreign Islamic clerics not suitable to preach who would be excluded from America.

*American government officials would never be able to reach the critically thought out conclusion that it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists and that no comprise would be possible.

And just why did I immediately jump to these seven conclusions?

There are two reasons:

1. I immediately knew the ACLU, the self-proclaimed paragons of American “moral virtue” and all things democratic (yeah right—they are feared as though they are the fourth branch of the federal government), would not allow it.

2. Because of representatives of “the people” like Barney Frank.

"Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa. Under Frank's amendment, which seems unthinkable post 9/11, a visa could only be denied if the government could prove that the applicant had committed an act of terrorism. Rendered toothless by the Frank amendment, the Reagan administration had virtually no way to block entry visas even when there was information linking the individuals to terrorist groups."[1]

And should this come a surprise to anyone?

“Between 1981 and 2001, Barney Frank sponsored no less than 13 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which had the effect of opening the nation's floodgates to a well-disciplined, well-organized network of terrorist sleeper cells and support groups that have since become entrenched here in America for up to two decades.

The Frank Amendment of 1989, the crown jewel of the congressman's assault on our immigration laws, declared that a foreigner could not be denied a visa because of his ideology, which meant that that no matter how repugnant, hostile or undemocratic an individual's politics, these could not be grounds for denying him entry into the United States.”[2]

Gerald Posner, author of these quotes makes this observation of Frank:

“The Congressman exhibited an almost exasperated disbelief when I continued to query him, as if I were a knave to even dare to question his legislative record. When I evidently let on that I was less than convinced by his response, he questioned whether I had listened to anything he already told me. So chagrined was Mr. Frank that someone should be disinclined to accept his rhetoric as gospel.”[3]

If I may opine here, this is the typical response of someone who lives a life of untested assumptions and is incapable of engaging in critical thinking skills—now you know my opinion of Barney Frank.

That is the abysmal state of the American federal government. We are ruled not by a government of the people and by the people but by a self-proclaimed human rights organization supported financially by ideologues. We are ruled by congressmen and senators who would not know how to think critically if their lives depended on it—and everyone’s does.

Even as I write these words, Britain is actually implementing the seven conclusions I assumed America would NEVER implement after 9/11 occurred.[4] To say I was shocked is to put it mildly.

Will America ever come to its senses and follow Britain in this measure to adopt these new and much needed, and what our friends like the “good” Congressman Barney Frank will undoubtedly call, draconian measures?

I doubt it very, very much. In fact, I so doubt it that the wife and I have no plans ever to return to America.

[1] Author Gerald Posner, as published in Frank's hometown newspaper, The Newton Tab.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan proposal for the government to spend $109 billion over two years to upgrade roads, bridges and transit systems and create jobs easily cleared a crucial hurdle in the Senate on Thursday.

More Articles: