"What would happen if all these neutral nations...were with one spontaneous impulse to do their duty...and were to stand together...against aggression and wrong? At present their plight is lamentable; and it will become much worse. They bow humbly and in fear to...threats of violence. ... Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear...the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar, ever more loudly, ever more widely. It will spread to the South; it will spread to the North. There is no chance of a speedy end except through united action."
--Sir Winston Churchill
"In this era of hyper-sensitivity and political-correctness, words no longer have meaning. Those who are good are too often portrayed as evil; indefensibly wicked acts are made less so by the way they are described. Words like 'hero' and 'hatred' have lost definition. In the midst of a struggle for survival, the inability to discern attackers from allies, friends from foes and heroes from cowards is potentially catastrophic. ... The word 'hero' no longer means one who has willingly put himself in grave physical jeopardy for the benefit of another. Heroes are people who overcome evil by doing good at great personal risk. Through self-sacrifice, fortitude and action -- whether they succeed or fail -- heroes provide a moral and ethical framework -- and inspiration -- for the rest of us. Unfortunately, our modern definition of 'hero' has been corrupted to include all manner of people who do not warrant the title. The athlete who just set a new sports record isn't a hero. Nor is the 'daring' movie star or even the adventurer out to be the first solo climber to scale Mt. Everest. They may be brave -- but they don't meet the definition of a hero, for whatever they achieve benefits only 'self.' Real heroes are selfless."
"A generation ago, liberals figured out something that most conservatives couldn't have dreamed of in their worst nightmare. A few well-positioned autocrats can do what most Americans thought, and the Constitution says, takes two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures to do: namely, change the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean. The plan was simple. Put justices on the Supreme Court, backed up by lower court judges, to 'modernize' our Constitution by fiat, with the claim that Supreme Court decisions, whether based on the words of the Constitution or not, have the same status as the Constitution itself. How often do we hear that our founding compact needs to be a living, breathing document whose meaning changes with the times? Never mind what the words of our Constitution actually say; never mind the clear intent of the Constitution's writers and signers; never mind two hundred years of judicial interpretation; never mind the centuries-old wisdom of the common law: We are much wiser today than our predecessors. Or so goes the liberal boast. In fact, it is said, we are now able to see just what they were 'getting at' even better than they could -- as if the U.S. Constitution were only a 'nice try' at a plan of government."
--Sen. Rick Santorum
"[Terrorists are] all in it together, these killers, whatever their particular branch of the same, murderous fanaticism. There will always be those who dare not risk offending by calling a terrorist a terrorist, who would much prefer to overlook the gore and just go about their business, maybe even muttering something about how those people have been killing each other for thousands of years, and it's certainly no business of ours to interfere.... [But] our greatest weapon in this struggle is something beyond arms and armor, television monitors and metal detectors. It is solidarity. And the kind of moral clarity that can still call terror by its right name -- not insurgency or militancy but what it is: terror."
"Sure, the invasion of Iraq was supposed to -- and will -- make us safer. But few said it would make us safer right away, and those who suggested otherwise were foolish for doing so. But why anybody should be shocked or outraged that terrorists are striking back even as they lose the war is beyond me. The only shock and outrage should be over their willingness to murder innocent civilians indiscriminately. And, perhaps, a little shock and outrage is called for in response to those who think such terrorism is justified at all."