Liberals accusing Republicans of "fear-mongering" is getting annoying.

Let me just begin this article with a disclaimer and a definition. First of all, in this piece, I will not spiral down into anti-woman rhetoric, I will not denounce abortion, I will not disparage gays and, regretfully, my subject matter will not lampoon the comical ineffectiveness of affirmative action. So do not call me a sexist, homophobic, fundamentalist bigot. In addition, let me define a term for you: neocon (short for neoconservative). This label refers to a hawkish philosophy with a penchant for big government programs, strong defense and redistribution of income—modern examples of neoconservatives are President Bush, David Horowitz, etc. In contrast to these views, I am a plain old regular conservative. I believe in smaller government, strong defense, and individual entrepreneurship. In short, I believe in the Constitution. How blasï¿½. So do not call me a neocon. Having just deprived liberal readers of every arrow in their quiver, I believe I can now make my point, and leftists will have no ad-hominem slurs with which to counter it. My point regards (insert ominous music here) The War on . . . Terror. (Gasp!) You will see, in my piece, how liberals blatantly attribute any warning of danger to "fear tactics." You will also see that Americans may actually have a reason to be cautious, but never daunted. ABC News marveled that presidential candidate John McCain "Push[ed] back on any idea he's fear-mongering, [saying] his charge that al Qaeda in Iraq would follow Americans home is based on al Qaeda rhetoric. ‘That's not my idea, that's theirs, if you read what bin Laden, Zawahiri, and all the others are saying,' he said." The ABC reporters were all too eager to heap the infernal charge of "fear-mongering" on McCain when he dared to mention the dire consequences of losing in the most critical theatre of the War on Terror. Subsequently, in another February 29th article, Michelle Obama stated that her husband's detractors "threw in the obvious, ultimate fear bomb," when they had the gaucherie to mention Barack's middle name: (looks both ways nervously and lowers voice to whisper) Hussein. Also, the AP cited Senator Leahy in his exegesis on President Bush's diabolical motivations for defending Americans. Could it be, Leahy wondered, that "the president once again is misusing his bully pulpit"? "Once again, they show that they are not above fear-mongering if that's what it takes to get their way." And what was that villain Bush "fear-mongering" about? He wanted immunity for telecomm corporations that help us stop terrorists before they attack and kill, say, 3,000 of our fellow citizens. But that threat ended, didn't it? There's no more terrorism! We have nothing to worry about on this banner day of "fear-mongering" headlines. On February 29th, 2008, the threat of terrorism is no more. Right? Wrong. On that very same day, the AP noted that six people were hospitalized "after the deadly toxin ricin was found in [a] Las Vegas motel room." The FBI is not ready to call this terrorism, but it is certainly a threat, and it has injured our fellow citizens. When will we learn the lessons of 9/11? When will we stand up like men and defend our cities? Well, I guess we probably shouldn't, in retrospect. We probably shouldn't warn of ricin or anthrax attacks (both of which have happened). We probably shouldn't—we might be accused of fear-mongering. So, go ahead, Democrats. Call me a fear-monger. It's the only attack you have left. And when you're done, try pointing your ire toward the people who actually pose a threat to this country. No, not the neocons. I can already hear your talking points firing. The threat is not George W. Bush. The threat is your own compromising weakness. Ask yourself the same question Ronald Reagan asked of all Americans in 1964. "Do we really want peace? Or do we only wish to be left in peace?" A passive, pacifist attitude can accomplish only one thing: surrender. And when you exchange your freedom for "the chains of slavery," then you will have more than George W. Bush to complain about.