…. and tough for Americans to survive, especially in stricken areas. This possibility stands tall on these leg-premises: [a] If under the outspoken principles of Liberalism or in the name of unrestricted freedom pointedly distorted, wrongly perceived and deleteriously preached in the political campaign for president, and [b] If paying homage to civil liberty for political expediency becomes the mantra for electing a president, big trouble for this country looms ahead.
At the end of the road lies the catacomb of change out of this coming presidential election. Once the current national security measures are abrogated or radically changed by the next president-elect even as we face the imponderables of this November election, it is time to prepare this early for a radioactive news fallout. The inescapable truth is that we are electing Mr. Bad Philosophy for president whose dogged political commitment would cause this terrible foreseeable event to unfold only few months from now. edwin sumcad/03/10/08
Bad Philosophy For Change
This national concern of the danger that lurks in the corner is not referring to
Clinton who are running for president. It refers to the philosophy they advocate that would change life in
Americaonce any of them is elected president.
Philosophy for president” appropriately describes this prime mover for change, in a very discreet and precise manner.
How precise? It is as precise as the pounding hammer that rises and falls hard right on the head of the nail added to the coffin. It is quite ingenious if not patriotic for NWS to circulate a safety bulletin in case of a “dirty bomb” attack the strong possibility of which rides in the coming wind of change. Log-in to this and prepare yourself.
Once elected president,
Clinton or Obama or McCain would abolish the law on “military torture” [waterboarding] of captured terrorists who mass-murdered innocent civilians, bombed buildings and destroyed cities, as a violation of human and civil rights.
It was also a violation of privacy rights — so they claimed with so much audacity and bravado — to spy on terrorists using electronic devices, to discover their terrifying secret plots to blow us up to kingdom come.
McCain would probably pursue implementing this particular life-and-death security measure instead of changing it, and it is here where the comparison between him and
Clinton or Obama stops. Their philosophy for change runs parallel again to benefit terrorists, and that would be setting these killers free to blast us to smithereens, thus the possibility of a “dirty bomb” attack becomes certain as the sun rises from the East and goes down in the West. This unchangeable phenomenon cannot be otherwise. And this pertains to their inflexible determination to close
As we know,
Guantanamo is a prison camp outside of the
United States for hardened terrorists. Closing this camp would grant terror detainees the right to habeas corpus by bringing them all to the United States where the court would let them roam the street freely while awaiting trial – free to kill … free to detonate their bombs again.
The presence of those terrorists here in the United States with protected civil liberty and human rights equal to those Americans they murdered – which Mr. Bad Philosophy for president advocates — will give us this macabre opportunity to once more mourn and bury our dead as 9/11 repeats itself or even worse when detonating “dirty bombs” is top on the list of the terrorists’ new agenda.
Note that Guantanamo, waterboarding and electronic spying that Mr. Bad Philosophy wants to get rid of in the amalgamation of new changes for America reborn, had saved millions of American lives … these are our most effective preventive means that hold Al Qaeda and their internal Fifth Columns at bay, and to eventually defeat terror itself.
In this faceless and endless war on terror, the creation of these national security devices that would soon disappear was a matter of national survival. We thought of it deeply, debated over it and argued its merits and demerits like hell for years, and finally decided through Congress, to pass the Patriot Act as amended for their embodiment into law. To dismantle all of these in favor of the enemy, is thoughtlessly uncalled for – almost like an act of treason. To American voters,
Philosophy to elect for president.
However, on this issue, McCain’s redeemer in the role of
Philosophy, may not be ignored. McCain was a casualty of war. His experience of being confined and restricted of civil liberty, spiritual and physical freedom in an enemy prison camp and his painful memory of torture, were all personal. He was a POW in the Vietnam War. He is a living hero of the war on terror.
The point is, if he is truly a hero, there is a possibility that he would ride over his trauma on torture, and support waterboarding, Guantanamo and electronic spying for our sake – for the sake of more than two hundred million Americans — and for the survival of this country against terror that he has been fighting ever since.
It is on this bright prospect that millions of Americans pin down their only hope similar to mine and that of members of my large family residing in different states, to vote for McCain this November. These reservations would have disappeared had the nation been given a rare opportunity to elect
Romney for president.
This is totally different in the case of
Clinton and Obama. Being
Philosophy for president is schematically theoretical if not philosophically ideological. They are without doubt, political intransigents with a dangerous belief on political correctness, i.e. the popular cause of freedom, civil rights and civil liberties against the hardly understood safety of millions of Americans, against national security for survival, and finally against the Patriot Act we are now riding on out of harm’s way.
In so far as their perilous philosophy is concerned, they are dye-in-the-wool diehards committed deeply down to the marrow of their bones to carry it out even it the sky will fall.
Whereas in McCain’s case remedy is possible, the Clinton-Obama case cannot be corrected even by lobotomy.
Philosophy from the Liberals and the extreme left, wiggles its way out when reality checks expose their irrelevance, public rejection or defeat. Not only is this the remarkable attribute of left-leaning Liberal presidential aspirants but “nuisance” Republican candidates have them too.
Just recently Republican candidate
Paul hinted to end his “long-shot campaign for the presidency”.
Paul mouths his libertarian philosophy in the campaign that passes as part of the platform of the Republican Party when it is not. While the other Republican candidates condemned terror in the
United States, this candidate blamed the government among others – not the terrorists – for 9/11. He expected Americans to elect him president after faulting their support for the presence of the
United States in the
Middle East that according to him will trigger the occurrence of more 9/11s.
With this defeatist philosophy, there is no way Republican candidate
Paul could win the nomination. He did not have even a Chinaman’s chance, as I repeatedly stated in many of my published articles on
Paul. I like this guy’s humility and courage, but like many Americans, I disagree with his rather bizarre vision of change for
America when elected president.
Paul should have quit the race long time ago to spare me and others who like me like him, and save himself and his supporters the agony of being branded a “nuisance candidate” or “an eyesore” in the Republican public debate. When I brought up this sentiment of the general public in many of my published articles regarding the weakest candidates, my editorial critique came out as an eye-opener, but surprisingly, only
Paul’s few loyal supporters were upset about it.
One of them called my attention to the truth of
Paul’s candidacy. It was explained to me in clear and unmistakable terms that
Paul’s candidacy was not – repeat was not — about winning the presidential nomination … “it is about rebuilding a constituency for freedom and limited government … etc.”
The point I raised was different — with this bad political philosophy which was obvious – I said honestly that this candidate has no chance of winning the nomination. Faced with this reality, this libertarian philosophy buried its head under the sand and came out with a response that descended from another planet. That
Paul was running in the primary election not wanting to win the nomination but to “rebuild a constituency for …” is not from this earth, or at least is not what the primary election is all about.
All candidates for president always start and end their campaign speeches with “When I am elected president …” and close them with “if I am elected president…”. No candidate wants not to be elected president. If a candidate is there for something else, that candidate deserved to be ignored … to be branded a “nuisance candidate” that wastes the people’s money and the nation’s energy, although it does make a handful of diehard followers and supporters happy in an excursion to dreamland or a trip to nowhere unreal, or to a destination outside the realm of reality.
This is what I mean when I said earlier that Mr. Bad Philosophy coming out from the cocoon of Libertarianism, Liberalism and the diehard thinking of the ideological left, wiggles its way out when faced with a sad reality or when their invasive irrelevance, public rejection or defeat is exposed.
Trapped in dreamland where fault, shortcoming and misbehavior in public are exposed, they would rather shamelessly exit with verbosity, than admit with humility and be a real man [or a real woman with moral conviction and self-respect].
Clinton and Obama, like that professor from the University of Chicago accompanied by a deacon of a certain faith that appeared in Fox News, have been crucifying President Bush for calling Osama bin Laden, his murderous minions and their American accomplices from within, evil.
Their anti-Bush outrage was based on a strange philosophy that runs something like this: It is not for us or for Bush to judge those terrorists as evil [and by good heavens for fear that in spite of 9/11 terrorists could be saints]. Branding anyone evil is a bad rhetoric, so goes the supporting argument. Instead we should know why they are doing this to us. Only by knowing their reason/s and understanding them can we succeed in defeating them.
Philosophy often mouths these deceptive niceties in public. Let us grant graciously that we know the reason why terrorists blew up the WTC and the Pentagon and killed innocent civilians. And that reason is, to them we are the bad guys, and they are the good guys, that’s why the blood-letting that we receive from them
Let’s suppose further that for us to be the good guys like them is for us to become what they want us to be – be like them, think like them, and live like them or think the way they do. This simply means that they do not want us to live our own way of life. If we choose to live our own way of life, they will blow up buildings and kill innocent civilians.
Philosophy … now that you know the reason why they want to murder us in cool blood?
Philosophy has only one of either two options out:
 To avoid being blown up to smithereens, change our way of life, live the way the terrorists do and do what they want us to do.
Why not “persuade” the evil ones to change their way of life into our way of life? This is how
Philosophy argues. Now the enemy is using the same persuasion to us – for us to change to their way of life. Is this possible?
It is not possible because it is self-denying and demented. First of all, Evil does not change. It is evil. Second, if Evil changes from bad to good, then it is not evil.
It’s the same as saying that we could not change hell into heaven, because hell can never be heaven. Nor can we turn the Devil into God, because the Devil can never be God. They are antipodal realities or entities that negate each other.
 The other option is: To avoid being blown up to kingdom come and to stop the evil ones from killing innocent civilians, let’s not think and act like how
Philosophy thinks and acts. Instead, let’s accept the truth that they are evil, and call them what they are – evil, period – and “bomb” them out of existence, like how President Bush call them and like what we are now doing against them in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is in the equation of war for survival … in the tribal law of the strong that eliminates the weaker competitor for survival. This applies to both sides of the drawn lines of antipathy and self-preservation.
Simply said, the enemy kills to survive. We cannot survive on the enemy’s survival if the enemy continues to kill each and every one of us, destroy this country, and erase our civilization back to the cave.
If option 2 is the right direction to choose, would this not make
Philosophy a candidate for brain surgery?
The real message to
Philosophy that justifies
Bush’s calling our enemies “evil ones” and confirms that what we are now doing in this war against evil is more than justified, may be outlined in the form of a very simple philosophical equation:
To the evil ones – Their existence = (equals) (is) our elimination.
To us therefore – Our existence = (equals) (is) their termination.
Chicago professor and the retired deacon that criticized
Bush before millions of outraged Americans may be men of highest academic learning (holding a Ph.D.). But they forgot that they cannot play God in justifying evil as something godly by getting foolish with reasons.
Viewing this foretold episode either way — straight or upside down — we end up with the same strong conclusion that we cannot elect
Philosophy for president.
Unfortunately, if we do not deserve a “dirty bomb”, that possibility is now remote.
Edwin A. Sumcad. Access NWS March 10, 2008.
Click on NWS columnist button to know more about the author or you may e-mail your comment at firstname.lastname@example.org.
This newsletter shows what makes us shine here at NWS. If you found it informative and want more such news and articles delivered right to your mailbox, don't delay, use the above newsletter signup form to sign up and start receiving more like this today!