To the cowardly among us:

In the years since 9/11 the most cowardly among us, waving flags and bleating in loud voices “The War on Terrorism”, have cut and whittled away at the rights of the rest of us in order to gain for themselves and their posterity a half a percent, of a half a percent, of a half a percent of perceived security.

And, to my shame, I have remained basically silent. Partly it’s because the little old ladies, whatever their age and gender, who are terrified of Al Qaeda sneaking a bomb into their stocking drawer really are scared . . . and you­–or at least I– feel bad picking on them for it.  Partly because it’s hard to argue against security measures, and especially difficult in an atmosphere of paranoia and panic. It sounds like you’re calling people cowards. Especially since they are being cowardly. And that doesn’t tend to make you lots of friends.

Yes, I have snorted in disgust and muttered about the senselessness of it But, for the most part, I have stayed demurely off soap boxes.

NO MORE

Now, in the name of “holy security” our government–in our name–is denying a place to the very poor and huddled masses for whom Lady Liberty lifts her torch beside the Golden Door. Now not only are we forced to sacrifice our liberty to Miss Grundy’s paranoia, but also our basic human decency.

I won’t do it! I can’t!

In the words of another crackpot from an earlier age: Here I stand. I can do no other.

7 comments

  1. I thought you moved to East Chicago, Gorg, not Hollywood. It’s a TEMPORARY ban on immigration from the same 7 countries the Obama administration cited as associated with terrorism. Take a load off off you feet and have a seat.

    1. First there is nothing more permanent in the known world then a TEMPORARY ban or regulation. Unless it’s a TEMPORARY cruelty or a TEMPORARY injustice.
      Second I would not care if the refugees were from Nazi Germany or Pol Pot. They are the ones running away from that crap not the ones doing the crapping. I also wouldn’t care if Barack Obama were to proclaim his full throated approval of Trump’s actions it would not make them right.
      So. No I will not sit down.

  2. Stand, then, but tell me this: what percentage of the millions of refugees in the world are you willing to accept as terrorists into this country of ours?. Did you know there was a ban placed on Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany during WWII? They found a Nazi spy among them and FDR said “No More.” If I recall correctly, FDR was a Democrat. President Trump’s actions aren’t without precedent. I supported the man while he was running for President and I support him now that he is POTUS but if the ban holds longer than he originally ordered I may cry foul too unless there’s a damn good reason. The trouble we’re having in the U.S. today is because the far left liberals won’t quit their weeping, whimpering and whining long enough to give President Trump a chance. Oh, and let’s not forget the rioting. UC Berkeley comes to mind as the most recent. I think the thing that frightens most leftists is that President Trump is keeping the promises he made during his campaign. Yeah, who would have thought that would ever happen in this life. But he’s doing it. We gave former President Obama 8 years to improve America and the only improvement he made is possibly in his golf score. President Trump has been in office for 2 whole weeks! Give him a chance, for the country’s sake, give him his 100 days, at least.

  3. And we’re back to your cowardice diminishing my human decency. You use as your precedents, our most shameful acts. As though quoting the errors of the past justifies repeating them in the present. In so doing you diminish us all and blot our flag with shame.

    No sir, I will not let it pass.

  4. Carey L. Chilcote has complained that I have been deleting his posts and positions. This is true. I have been. And with a certain amount of regret I will continue to do so. Note in my view Carley holds his views honestly the below is directed primarily at Carey but applies to everyone.

    It’s not your opinions. It’s the “alternative facts” that seem to go with them. In a way it’s not even the “alternative facts” It’s the distraction and time that sorting through them requires. I will give one example, just one, again because I simply don’t have the time to go through all the sentences in all your posts and fact check each clause. And apparently neither do you.

    Example: You state that FDR found a NAZI spy among the Jewish refugees. What actually happened is in a speech FDR referred to reports that some nations in Europe had discovered NAZI among the refugees they took in. I have not been able to find a single credible source that any Jewish or German refugee in the period in question was an agent for the NAZIs.
    Now I could counter that “alternative fact” point out out the falsehood but that just leads us down a rabbit hole of minutia and ignores the much greater issue that the overwhelming number of NAZI sympathizers in the US at that time were in fact American citizens. Not all of them even of German descent.
    I could discuss the fact that even if one in three of the refugees had been NAZI spies they still wouldn’t match the number of NAZI sympathizers that were running around in the German American Bund. Ignoring the “alternative fact” but that would leave the lie standing on my site.
    Then there is the issue that the actions were not in fact the same. While the number of refugees was decreased a total ban was not placed. All FDR did as a matter of policy was reduce the numbers. The State Department, which was rife with antisemitism, as was America in general at that time, dragged their collective feet so that not even all the, far too few refugees, that FDR’s official policy allowed got in. Bad but not as bad as Trump’s ban.
    Beyond that is point that the US position on Jewish refugees before and during WWII while not quite as shameful and racist as the Japanese internment camps is both shameful and racist. Arguing that what FDR did is a justification for Trump doing a similar but more extreme thing is very much akin to arguing that we should reinstituted slavery because it was legal in the first half of the nineteenth century.
    And even now we aren’t back to the basic point of the original post.

    Since 9/11 we, as a nation, have been panicked over the notion of terrorism. The response of our nation through our government has been a whittling away of our rights. Bad enough and more than bad enough but now with the ban it is using the fear of some of us to damage the morality/decency of all of us. And I find that as much as the loss of rights disturbs and angers me the assault on my decency angers me more.

    As to Carley’s posts the more important point is that to answer one false clause, in one sentences, of one of your posts, took around four hundred words. And the totally predictable consequence of my doing so will be that you will post more responses, all filled with “alternative facts” requiring more time to answer.
    If I let you post, and answer I will have time for no writing other than answering your posts. I don’t have the time for that option
    If I let you post, and don’t answer, I will be giving silent endorsement to your “alternative fact” based positions. I am unwilling to do that.
    Which leaves me with no other option but to remove your posts. I am truly sorry about that.

    G Huff

  5. Hear, hear! It has very much bothered me that theresponse to American deaths was a disposal of the freedoms that countless American servicemen have died to protect.
    I must, however, disagree with the cause. I do not think it a physical cowardice as much as a moral cowardice… the fear that they will be blamed for something occuring due to lack of action, no matter what the cost.
    Beyond that I think much of this is opportunism. An excuse to place restrictions that some people long for anyway. In the same way that ‘fear of Federal interference in elections’ causes the Senate to embrace foreign interference in elections, to the point of killing a bill that would allow Federal funds to be given to states for the purpose of upgrading their election defenses.

Leave a Reply to Virginia DeMarce Cancel reply