Terrorist Training at the Ivy League???
Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 8 months ago to Politics
This is what $50,000 a year in tuition alone buys...
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
The phrase from history that came to mind when I watched it was "The Banality of Evil". The guy in the video is so clueless that he almost seems harmless, but he's not. He seemed to truly not comprehend what an ISIS "freedom fighter" was, and what a little "training camp" would mean. And the undercover journo also mentioned Hamas. Not that not knowing ISIS is excusable, but Hamas has been around for a long, long time. What planet has this guy been on? I guess the planet Ithaca.
And I've seen a lot of O'Keefe's.other work. Brilliant, courageous and a hero in my book, too..
In the other, I simply commented: "Nuts!".
33 E. College St. Hillsdale, MI 49242 800 437-2268
I am neither an alumni nor a spokesman, for them but it might be worth your time to look into them if you are at that stage in life.
BYU, or any other Christian school, I would not recommend to anyone. They impose conditions on your private life that should not be allowed.
Where did you think the liberal DemReps were trained?
This is about the politically-connected, holier-than-thou Ivy Leaguers vs the sovereignty and liberty of every individual.
.. there would have been successful resistance to any suggestion that the Bill of Rights could be optional, and there would be no "patriot act" and no Homeland Security and no jack booted thugs molesting grandmothers and preteens in airports.
The GOP IS THE ENEMY.
(and so are the Dems.)
I also agree that creating an entirely new DHS was absurd and only increased bureaucracy. The solution was to follow El Al's lead. It's not racial profiling, it's suspect description.
That said, in wake of 9/11, when the entire world thought Iraq had (and turns out did) have WMD's, crushing them was non-negotiable. The problem is, we didn't go far enough. We should have built the largest military base ever constructed in the middle of the country and put the entire Middle East on notice... you had an opportunity to get your crap together and you proved incapable. Now we're here to stay to make you do it.
Also agree that DHS and TSA etc. are useless. I hate the term "racial profiling", I really like yours.
And as a student of history and especially WWII, and one who thinks Patton should have gone all the way to Moscow, my only disagreement with your final point is that Bush Sr. should have implemented what you suggest the first time around. It worked out well in Germany and Japan, and maybe we would have avoided 9/11. Of course the Middle East would have been more complicated than a completely vanquished Germany and Japan, but could it by any stretch of the imagination have turned out worse than the mess we face now?
The Founding Fathers wrote extensively (and I believe correctly), that the framework they created for us depended heavily (owing its structural integrity) on the morality of the citizens. The maintenance of Judeo-Christian values on which our rights and law are based is mission critical.
This is not antithetical to liberty and personal freedom, it's essential to it.
As an intellectual curiosity, what tenant of social conservatism do you think should be jettisoned?
However, if we do not protect the lives of those that are completely defenseless, what kind of country are we? As a country, do we protect babies, or do we murder them?
And I also agree that power allows you the option of protecting the innocent. If you do not choose to do so, that is your prerogative, but it does not speak well of you.
Jan
Take a look at references to God in Washington's Thanksgiving proclamation.
Check out Jefferson's "Notes to Virginia State" "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? The list goes on an on.
You're actually 180 degrees out of phase. It's only been in relatively modern history that religion was taken out of public discord, based in large part on incorrect interpretation of Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists, which is widely known.
The Founding Fathers did not want a "state religion" as England had, but the notion that religion would be devoid would have been anathema to them.
Most of the religiously-motivated laws that interfere in private life today (such as the restrictions on abortion and marriage discussed upthread) were always the law in this country, and didn't start to be challenged until at least the 20th century.
I agree with you that such laws have no business being in government, but the First Amendment was never intended to say that. So we need at least one new "mind your own business" Constitutional amendment to justify keeping them out. Courts that pull new rights out of where the sun don't shine (as in both Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas) can change their minds.
This is why the anti-federalists didn't want a standing army, and they were right.
If we went there for oil, why didn't we take it? Frankly, we should have taken an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the war, but instead we allowed the Iraqis to keep their resource.
Just for the sake of the argument, though, free flow of oil at market prices is absolutely a reason to go to war. Oil is the fuel that runs the engine of the world, which is why we should jettison the Earth Day crowd and develop all the oil and natural gas resources we have in N America.
All that said, we DID NOT go to war in Iraq for oil... that dog won't hunt.
The ancient WMDs were nothing but a convenient excuse to invade. There was no evidence of terrorists being armed by Saddam Hussein, nor any rational Iraq connection to 9/11.
And, it should remain that way... we're the good guys. The current White House occupant not withstanding, America is still the last be hope for freedom and liberty in the world.
We (you and I and everyone in the Gulch) may be good guys, but our government stopped that moral practice a long time ago. thats why there is an income tax and a federal reserve and an NSA spying on all of us. They are not the good guys. We have to live it and work for it and fight for it if America is to be the source of liberty again.
The brain trust in the early '60s (Kennedy, McNamara etc.) thought they knew more than the people at Colts and that's why the M16 1A1 had such a jamming problem. They decided that the weapon didn't need case hardening and chrome plating for the bolt and receiver with all their superior knowledge of everything. This one cost lives needlessly, but it did save a couple of bucks.