Like Rain in Pakistan...

That's what Ryan's posts are like... nothing for months, then a "flood" of material to respond to.

Hehe... that's funny.

Anyway.

My first day off in a long stretch, so I get to respond without having to cram before work. Just wanted to touch on Ryan's stuff before I get too far along.

I did have a couple of questions...

What the hell is "gull"?

I'm going to assume you meant "gall" (–noun 1. impudence; effrontery. 2. bile, esp. that of an animal. 3. something bitter or severe. 4. bitterness of spirit; rancor. ) and that the adjective you wanted was "unmitigated" rather than "unhesitating"... although "unhesitating" isn't without merit in this case.

Now that the semantics are over, let's look at one of your initial points (and this is simply for clarity... I'm not opposing you on this matter, I want to be clear on that):

Ryan writes:

You may say being more tolerant than life in America circa 1951 is a "good" thing, even towards those whom have attacked us. Perhaps so. But my question is this: I won't call it "grit", that's a bit too positive an adjective, so lets say "unhesitating gull." Would an America without the unhesitating gull to take the actions I described above, to prevent the Shinto Temple, be an America capable of marshaling a victory over the Axis Powers? In other words, if at that time had our survival instincts as a nation been so dulled by PC that internment camps and opening all letters in and out of the nation, etc, were rendered unthinkable, would that America be able to issue rules of engagement that basically boiled down to "win"? Would that America be capable of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Of taking Guata Canal? If Lincoln wasn't of the constitution to suspend habeus corpus (no pun intended), does a CIC incapable of such action win the Civil War? The atrocities against the American Indian are well documented, but would an America repulsed at the idea of unsettling Indians in order to settle the West ever expand our borders from ocean to ocean? What I'm driving at is my larger concern here - if we are incapable of marshaling resistance enough to prevent the construction of this mosque, then have our national survival instincts become too dull to win in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the over all war against radical Islam?

What is the difference between the government-expanding policies of FDR/Truman in WWII, or Lincoln in the Civil War, or Madison's during the War of 1812 (not on your list, I know), and those of Presidents that addressed national crisis outside of a declared war? I'm referring to Presidents like FDR/Truman (prior to WWII), Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Jr. and now Obama? Is the difference only in the results? Because FDR won the war, his "big government" mentality and policy orientation between 1942 and 1945 was suddenly acceptable when it was "antithetical" to American principles prior to 1942? Bush's signing into law of the first stimulus bill and the TARP legislation was wrong, but his expansion of the size and cost of Federal government by nearly 88% in 2002 (Homeland Security, et al) was okay? The myth of "Manifest Destiny" justifies what happened to the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw and Seminole Indians in the 1840s onward?

Unless I am completely misreading your post, you are saying that individual freedoms, and the very principles that the Constitution was founded upon, are "secondary" to the greater goal of the preservation of the nation as a whole... even when you have already stated time and time again that once power is passed from the individual to the State, it is never returned. Just because we won WWII, FDR was NOT justified in his orders that all Americans of Japanese decent be rounded up and interred in camps without cause, charge or trial... I thought we had come to a mutual understanding on this point.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that there were "flaws" inherent in the Constitutional framework of the US that the process of amendment (as defined within the Constitution) wasn't fixing, and that the adoption or assumption of certain rights and privileges by the Federal government from the States and the People is an acceptable means by which the US was preserved from trial and tribulation, then we are on another topic completely, and one I brought up not all that long ago, either. If this is the case, aren't you simply taking a "lesser" approach to the same end that Obama and Co. are working towards with their "greater" approach? Aren't you justifying the assumption of power and authority by the Presidents that isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution by showing the ends as proof, regardless of the means?

I want to hear from you on this... and I'll probably revisit the topic periodically throughout the day, as I wait, because I have to break now to make the kids chocolate-chip pancakes and eggs.