Liberals and Treason
by
Erin Solaro

There is a reason why liberals like myself are typically reluctant to call things, such as Major Hasan’s treason, by their proper name.

Two, actually.

The first is that you will be attacked, and quite savagely, by your fellow liberals. So-called. Anything is grounds: minor grammatical errors, using formal, dignified language. Facts (like a number of incontrovertibly dead bodies) become meaningless and context (shouting Allahu Akbar before butchering your comrades, as opposed to offering it as a prayer of gratitude for being allowed to save someone’s life) changes nothing. Everyone who’s spent any time on the internet knows exactly what I’m talking about and has probably experienced it once or twice. Anonymous people will feel free to attack you and other anonymous people will quote them. As someone whose real, legal identity is readily visible even when I write under a screen name, I have a word for this kind of behavior, whether on the left or right. Cowardice. (As an aside, I have to tell you that the largely conservative forum of which I am a member believes the issues it handles are important to us all, so it simply does not tolerate that kind of behavior.)

The internet is a giant vomitorium, largely because of anonymity, but that doesn’t mean that this behavior doesn’t go a long way towards justifying, indeed causing many people who are decent and moderate in their behavior towards others, to seek anonymity. But even when one has obscured one’s identity, these kinds of attacks are profoundly unpleasant. I’ve been subject to them more than once and I always feel contaminated by observing this behavior: disgusted and shamed for the perpetrators and saddened for my country and its culture. This is what we have done with our freedom. Many thoughtful, intelligent people are subjected to that once and decide Never Again. Not Worth It. I don’t blame them. I have, from time to time, a hope that spirited but very civilized public conversations are possible with people who are anonymous. I have unfailingly been disappointed.

The second is that you can quickly find yourself in some unsavory company. I had a woman write me about my assertion that Major Hasan’s actions are, in fact, a prima facie case of treason. Within two emails, she was asking me what I thought about people like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright? After I got over my Who? reflex, I said that they had nothing to do with the problems America faces, but I knew of some Treasury Secretaries and Fed Chairmen who were very responsible. In the space of 4 emails, she went from telling me we were liberal conservatives or conservative liberals who could disagree with each other to telling me we couldn’t discuss politics. Then there was an email I received from a man who liked what I had written about Major Hasan who thought I would like to know that he had posted it on his website, along with a formal accusation of the usurper President and his evil wife for treason. I have an impulse, which I have so far resisted, to email the man back and ask him whether or not he is able to read. I know he can cut and paste: he excerpted from my previous post the Constitutional definition of treason. So in the off-chance he can read, I repost it here.

The Constitution defines only one crime, and that is treason. ‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.’ The Framers clearly had no intention of allowing policy disputes and political disagreements or even criminal stupidity and misconduct to defined as treason—much less on the basis of hearsay, rumor-mongering or racism. Moreover, the only evidence accepted is two or more witnesses to the same overt act, or a confession in open court. And every American attempt to expand that definition has failed.

I have come to accept that my experiences saying things that people don’t expect from someone of my political views are a reflection of this country. An ugly, unpleasant, profoundly true reflection. There is an enormous amount of justifiable anger out there: ordinary working people across the demographic spectrum have been sold out and betrayed by the political and commercial elites across the political spectrum and there is no end to that betrayal in sight. However, we are a nation far gone in learned helplessness and passivity: we pay people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and, very likely soon, Lou Dobbs to get angry for us. And if as a writer, you say something people disagree with or dislike and can’t refute, they explode with anger and vitriol, rather than face the oncoming freight train that is America’s future.

My poor country. My heart bleeds for this Republic that I so love.

Lou Dobbs billboard at US border scares mexicans to stay the hell home

The liberal mainstream media is just making things up again.  As we all know, Lou Dobbs, who has been bravely reporting on the growing mexican menace from behind enemy lines at the Communist News Network studies, finally had enough and walked away from his job.

Today, CNN affiliates are reporting a big fat lie that Lou Dobbs is

actually named Luis Miguel Salvador Aguila Dominguez, who for the last 48 years had been living illegally in the United States under the name Lou Dobbs.

And they are claiming he is being deported!!  This is NOT TRUE.

Lou Dobbs is an American Hero who understands immigration issues almost as well as Rep Tom Tancredo.   I can assure you that I have no love for CNN.  But I have personally gone to the Home of Lou Dobbs, knocked on its door, and shook the hand of Lou Dobbs, thanking him personally for truthfully describing the mexican issue in clear, economic principles.  It was Lou Dobbs who has made it clear for 5 years that mexico has no business in being in NAFTA because it exports only dangerous drugs, rapists, tortillas, and filthy short people that nobody can burn understand.

If it weren’t for the fact that Lou Dobbs is jooish, God would reserve a special place for him in Heaven.  However, Rep Tom Tancredo has a special place for Lou Dobbs in his administration, and plans to about Lou Dobbs to his cabinet as Director of Border Operations Secretary.

Don’t listen to the lies of leftist Gotcha reporters and cynical pajama-wearing interblog pundits.  They aren’t the real Americans like you and me.  Lou Dobbs left his job because he needs more time to work on the tyranny in the Whitehouse WHILE stopping the unchecked flow of brown mexicans across our southern borders.

In one form or another, I hear this one a lot:

“Forced compassion through government taxation can never replace or even supplement true Christian charity”

I grabbed it from this thread today, but I’ve come across it many other times.

The idea is that if the government is making us give our money to help others, it doesn’t really require charitable thoughts, and so it doesn’t count.

It’s among the weakest straw-man arguments that I’ve ever encountered, for a very simple reason: that’s not the point.

When it comes down to it, laws don’t change the internal behavior of those subject to those laws. The law is a tool of compliance, not internal change.

Laws against murder don’t make citizens value human life. Laws against slavery didn’t make everyone equal in everyone else’s eyes. Laws against theft don’t make people respect other people’s property. What they’re meant to do, though, is define a limit to those internal failures.

It’s true that using the government to provide social services doesn’t make taxpayers into better people. It does, however, provide for the poor. That is the point of these programs.

A question that I’ve asked in various places (not the above-cited thread, though) is this: If you believe that it’s okay to use the government to impose social values, such as laws against abortion, gay marriage, or whatnot … why not imposing a form of charitable giving? I’ve never seen a good answer to that question. The fact that I couldn’t come up with one myself is why I changed several of my own political positions a decade and a half ago.

During last year’s election, I was working for a magazine and I requested an interview with a member of Barack Obama’s staff to get more information about where he stood on several key issues. The Obama staff never replied to my request, but they did add my e-mail address to the list.

What is the list?

The list is an ever-changing, never-ending group of e-mail addresses that will be sent requests to contribute to Democratic campaigns and causes until the end of time.

How do you get off the list?

You can’t. Because of the evolutionary nature of the list, unsubscribing to one campaign is meaningless. As of today’s date, I have been removed from 14 such campaigns, but every other day I still receive requests from various Democrats all over the state and the country to vote for this cause or give money to that guy.

The responses of the parties to my requests is quite telling, actually. My identical request sent to the McCain/Palin camp got no reply as well, but furthermore, I haven’t heard anything from them a full 16 months later.

The Republican Party chooses to completely ignore requests from the American public and caters to an increasingly isolated, super-wealthy, hive-minded, imbred for 6 generations fundamentalist conservative Christians who are neither Christian nor conservative.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party knows that the moderates and the left in America have no viable alternatives, so they take our support for granted. Just because I voted for Mr. Obama in 2004 for his Senatorial campaign doesn’t mean I think he would make a good President, and just because I’ve never voted for a Republican candidate in my life doesn’t mean I don’t think you’re a vile, sexless, spineless, useless organism who only perpetuates an inherently amoral, corrupt 2-party system.

So, Democratic National Committee, I’m asking that you make a choice. You can either address my political and social concerns by drawing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than adding 40,000 more troops, creating a single payer health care option, enacting comprehensive campaign finance reform, and neutering Wall Street compensation, or you can just take me off of your stupid list.

ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS GANG FIGHTS AFTER SCHOOL IS NOTHING NEW IN CANADA, I SAW THE SAME THING IN MONTREAL DURING MY PUBLIC SCHOOL DAYS TOO. But I do have to say parents and the recession, economy  firstly have set the tone, the environment for the fights. Both Working parents have no time to look after the kids, and both parents often fighting amongst each other over acquiring more money, paying the bills does not help much.. and it does affect the children’s school grades negatively now too.. but blaming the fights on the schools or the lack of policing is a false cop out.

Saskatchewan school locked down after firearm stolen from car outside building Wed Nov 11, 7:41 PM  CANDO, Sask. – Police are investigating the theft of a rifle from a veteran’s vehicle that resulted in a school lockdown in rural Saskatchewan.

do see also http://postedat.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/albertan-hate-crimes-awareness-day/

   If the reports coming out of Associated Press are accurate, President Obama may be prepared to take some measures in Afghanistan which would do us quite well. But those measures will not help us in either the short or the long-term if they are half measures.

AP reported the following on Wednesday evening:

“President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday”.

That news is said to be based upon a “cable” from the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry to the President. The information leaked from that private missive apparently has Eikenberry, a retired General who has served a Command of his own in Afghanistan, pessimistic about the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and their ability to effectively control embattled nation.

The White House is said to be considering three different options not presented to him by his national security council or the any of those charged with prosecoting the war on the ground in Afghanistan.  Each of his own created options will send additional troops to one extent or another but for varying purposes and on a timeline far different from the ones that many feel is appropriate.

One said plan would have a troop surge used to deal with Taliban forces that have recently gotten the upper hand in several regions of the country. Some of these additional forces will be used to hold some areas and buy some time for the Afghani army to reach appropriate strength and capability levels. The remaining troops would simultaneously be used for training the Afghan army.

This is a plan that I support. It is the plan that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice argued for, with the previous administration, for a year before they finally accepted it. Once the Administration did adopt that plan, a troop surge was approved and the plan worked. From that point on, the war in Iraq began to turn around for the United States. The plan was called “clear, hold, build”.

Clear, hold and build was first successfully used by Col. H.R. McMaster in the Iraqi city of Tal Afar. The strategy called for door to door operations that would successfully clear insurgents from the city. Once that was achieved, significant numbers of forces were left behind to hold the city. This allowed residents feel secure and prevented the enemy from simply coming back to the city after we left. With the city now cleared of the enemy and held secure from the enemy, U.S. and Iraqi troops began to build the stable starts of an infrastructure. Wherever this strategy was conducted, it worked. The resurgents were gone and our continued presence, prevented them from returning. As a result, citizens no longer lived in fear and life began to flow unimpeded by terror and violence. To carry out clear, hold and build, more troops and more time were required of us.

This same strategy, or an extremely close version of it, will work in Afghanistan. But it has no chance of working if we expect it to be completed overnight. To carry out such a plan in Afghanistan as a short-term exit strategy will be a half measure and result in a defeat of the purpose of the nine years we have already invested in the Afghani War on Terror.

According to reports, President Obama is simply looking at a way to surrender and leave Afghanistan to whatever fate its ill-equipped government will suffer.

The circumstances we face in Afghanistan are uniquely troubling and to overcoming that which makes it all so troubling will not be accomplished by a quick exit anytime soon.

In addition to waging an effective battle against the Taliban, we have to do whatever is possible to establish a secure, responsible, legitimate government in Afghanistan. If we are not committed to make sure that was is eventually created, than I say pull out right now, because if we are not willing to that, than we are not taking our own plight in the region seriously. But believing for a moment that we are serious about victory in Afghanistan, the most dramatic difficulty that we face in establishing that necessary stable and secure government is the fact that nine out of ten Afghan soldiers do not know how to read. This creates a significant roadblock to any quick training of troops to take our place if we leave anytime soon.

Proper training will be crucial in establishing a stable Afghani government that can takeover our current efforts and continue to render the Taliban ineffective. Under the circumstances, such effective training will take a great deal of time.

I understand that President Obama wants to be able to claim that he ended the war in Afghanistan. He wants to live up to that Nobel Peace Prize that he accepted and received prematurely before he had a chance to do anything. But would it not be a greater accomplishment for him and our nation to b e able to say that he ended the war successfully? For that to be achieved and acknowledged, President Obama can not take any half measures.

If reports are true, Ambassador Eikenberry sees no hope for us in Afghanistan.

Eikenberry wields a great deal of influence over the President in this matter. I only prayer that his defeatism will not be adopted by President Obama, and that the President will continue to wage what he calls a “war of necessity”, to its victorious conclusion. And just to be clear here, victory in Afghanistan is defined by the eventual creation of a government that can do what we are doing——destroy the Taliban and offer the Afghani people a bright future. Anything short of that will leave Afghanistan to again become the breeding and training ground for more 9/11’s to be launched from.

Mr. President, don’t allow that to happen. The future and security of your fellow Americans is far more important than any medal that a bunch of Scandinavians want to hang around your neck.

From Salon:

American women will pay the price for the Democratic dithering that allowed Saturday’s passage of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, a worm virus inserted into the House healthcare reform bill with surgical precision. But the Democratic Party will suffer collateral damage.

Stupak-Pitts isn’t just “the biggest restriction on women’s right to choose in our generation,” as Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado puts it; it’s also evidence that on abortion the Democratic Party is now captive, just like the GOP, to Christian conservatism. Of course, Republicans traded away their party’s moderate wing for real electoral gains, a base that propelled them to power for decades. The Democrats, already in power, sucker-punched themselves, and all they have to show for it is a big fat shiner in the shape of Bart Stupak’s knuckles.

Original DVD cover

But if Stupak, a former state trooper from Michigan, provided the muscle, his partner, Joe Pitts — a Pennsylvania Republican with decades in the trenches of the antiabortion battle — may have brought the brains, and more, a new Christian right coalition custom tailored for the Democratic Party’s growing religious conservatism. Stupak is Roman Catholic; Pitts is evangelical. Both are members of the predominantly evangelical organization called the Family; Stupak lives in its C Street house. Together, they’re poster boys for the evangelical/conservative Catholic alliance known as “co-belligerency,” a culture war strategy designed to take territory within the Democratic Party as well the GOP.

Stupak, the Democratic co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, insists that his amendment does nothing more than ensure that the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of federal funds for abortions, is carried over into healthcare reform.  [...] But the facts are plain: Stupak-Pitts will use the Hyde Amendment as a lever with which to radically roll back abortion rights, effectively strong-arming private insurers — most of which will be enmeshed with the federal government now — into abandoning coverage for abortions.

Much is being made in the media about the role played by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, which lobbied hard for the amendment. “We just have to accept this as a Catholic thing,” goes the new conventional wisdom. Leaving aside the fact that a strong majority of American Catholics are pro-choice [...]

Start with Stupak and Pitts themselves. Although Stupak is a Catholic, he’s lived since at least 2002 in the C Street house run by the Family, which cultivates political leaders on behalf of a long-term vision of what Joe Pitts, speaking at last year’s National Prayer Breakfast (the group’s only public event), called “God-led government.” After the summer sex scandals of Sen. John Ensign, Gov. Mark Sanford and former Rep. Chip Pickering, C Streeters all, made the Capitol Hill address infamous, Stupak denied any knowledge about the house he lives in.

…snip…

In its internal documents, the Family refers to itself as an “invisible organization” and the “prayer cells” into which it organizes politicians as “invisible ‘believing groups.’” [...] Longtime Family leader Doug Coe, dubbed the “stealth persuader” on Time magazine’s list of the 25 most influential evangelicals, declares in a sermon delivered to evangelical leaders that “the more invisible you can make your organization, the more influence it will have.”

Joe Pitts can testify to that. It’s a safe bet that until Stupak-Pitts, few Americans beyond Pennsylvania Amish country had even heard of the avuncular Republican, a former gym teacher who rarely attaches his name to legislation. And yet he’s been a driving force in the antiabortion fight for more than three decades. It was Pitts, a “core” member of the Family, who helped bring antiabortion politics into the organization back in the early 1980s. [...] Pitts and Stupak have joined forces on that front before, teaming up to try to turn President Bush’s underfunded but laudable President’s Emergency Relief for AIDS initiative into an antiabortion crusade. What they couldn’t achieve abroad, they’ve now brought back home, and then some.

They had plenty of help, starting at the Family’s C Street House. It’s home not just to Stupak but also to antiabortion Democrats Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania and Heath Shuler of North Carolina, and two of the Senate’s fiercest abortion foes, Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn — an obstetrician who once mused on applying the death penalty to abortion providers — and South Carolina’s Jim DeMint, famous for pledging to make healthcare reform Obama’s Waterloo. Other Family associates lining up behind Stupak-Pitts include evangelicals Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., John Tanner, D-Tenn., and Lincoln Davis, a Democrat from Tennessee who once proclaimed that no Republican could “outgun, out-pray, or out-family me.”

These Family ties don’t mean that Stupak-Pitts is a plot hatched at C Street. [... The] Family’s prayer groups don’t take direct action but rather facilitate the behind-the-scenes relationships that lead to action. “One person grows desirous of pursuing an action,” Sen. Sam Brownback, a Family man and former C Street resident, explained the process to me, “and others pull in behind.”

Which raises the question: Who’s pulling whom? Did backbencher Bart Stupak really come up with the bluff that led pro-choice Democrats to abandon not one but two compromises, one of which Stupak himself seemed to be signing off on earlier this summer? Or was it Pitts, an abortion-wars warrior since the 1970s, and a longtime leader of the House Values Action Team — an off-the-record caucus of religious right organizations and members of Congress — who drew up the blueprint?

Neither Stupak nor Pitts is talking. Of course, if they just keep quiet, the press will pin it on the bishops — who, to be fair, are more than happy to take credit. That version of events neglects the role of relationships forged within the evangelical context of the Family — a group founded in the spirit of virulent anti-Catholicism, and which maintains to this day that being Catholic brings you no closer to Christ than being Jewish or a Muslim — and the growing evangelical movement within the Democratic Party.

…snip…

Right now, even the diluted healthcare reform bill that’s limping toward more mauling in the Senate looks like the result of a historic vote. But as a weather vane, Stupak-Pitts tells us which way the wind is blowing. Last time the Democrats possessed this much power in Washington, the Dixiecrats tried to hold the party hostage. Now, it’s the faith-based Democrats. Dixiecrats were racists, plain and simple; the faith-based Democrats are a more complicated bunch, a mix of genuinely moral conservatives, many of them to the left on economic issues, political cowards, and default Blue Dogs. They’re anti-choice and anti-gay but, by God, they’re about love, not hate, a gentler fundamentalism, a faith based in the conflation of Christianity and the Constitution, not the substitution of one for the other. So that’s progress, right?

Jesus protected by a sad US GI on day of His rendition and torture

The peaceful, loving relationship between the US soldier and Jesus is the basis upon which the US projects its devastatingly effective military power.  Our Military and all of Her operations are certified by an authority no less powerful and Perfect than the Provenance of God!  We  engage in battle with Our enemies equipped with Divine Certainty that, as Gen George W. Bush has said repeatedly, “Our crusade against Muslim terror and the demonic treachery of the muslim is a just one!“

[For anybody who has difficulty with this concept, and considers equally legitimate all monotheistic faiths of the Abrahamic tradition,  I need only remind you that Jesus uses the King James Bible and only the King James Bible to deliver His message.  There is no such thing as a King James Koran....and there never will be.  In other words, when Jesus had the chance to vote for who would be His People, Jesus voted for the Christian and against the muslim.

And I don’t have to remind you that the War against Muslim Atrocities is a borderless war.  Try as we do to contain the battlefield within the borders of their own pathetic, God-foresaken countries, skirmishes break out from time to time elsewhere, including sometimes within the peaceful Borders of our very own Dominion.  This simple fact of islamic treachery teaches us that Christians must remain vigilant no matter it they are in Turkinministan, Timbuktoo or Tuscaloosa.

Do we project our Power perfectly at all times?  Of course we do not.  We are only God-like, not God.  We are human and the only real failing of a true Christian is in trying to be as perfect as God and then falling short.  But every once in a while we make a mistake.

For example, a Christian US Marine is now being persecuted by the secularists in Florida for a minor case of mistaken identity.  He was on leave, peacefully, going about his business, removing some laundry from the trunk of his car in front of his own home in a peaceful neighborhood of like-minded Christians.  Because he was trained so well, he was aware this calming scene could be disrupted at any moment and was also on alert.

Inexplicably,  someone doing a PERFECT muslim imitation came running up from behind this soldier with an opium-crazed look on his face, screaming, “Allah akbar!  Allah akbar!” which literally translated means, “I am about to pull the cord on this here homicide bomb, Allah willing!”

Because he was a US Marine he was trained to recognize homicidal islamofascism in a blink of an eye and to do what any good Christian would do in a situation like that:  he grabbed the tire wrench from the trunk of his car and used it to repeatedly beat this savage pseudo-islamofascist mercilessly, to stop him from activating the bomb that any reasonable American would presume was wrapped around his chest, which would be used to harm any innocent Christian women and children who are nearby.

Once unconscious, it was determined that this muslim-wannabe was, in fact, not a typical muslim terrorist and was instead a member of some catholic-like mediterranean-based wiccan cult who had illegally immigrated into the US through our broken borders.  Further, he might just as well have been a deaf mute because he didn’t speak or hear a lick of English, a fact which might have led to some uncertainty about his true intentions.

Sadly, the Christian US Marine was subsequently arrested and charged with assault and attempted murder, and now suffers the worst sort of persecution imaginable: false imprisonment by the very same government he swore to defend with Honor until the last breath of his life.  He has become an enemy of the liberal state.

This incident proves many things.  First, it proves that after generations of removing God from our schools, our secular law enforcement culture apparently has lost any ability to tell the difference between justified defense from a homicidal maniac, and mistaken identity and is willing to persecute good Christians who might accidentally do the latter.

Second, to the degree this case might possibly represent unfortunate “collateral damage” in the war against muslims, it also proves the wisdom of Rep Tom Tancredo’s platform for insisting that English be the Official Language in the US.  To prevent further mishaps of this nature, as our next president, Rep Tom Tancredo will enact laws that ensure visitors to this Dominion can pass basic English proficiency tests before entering through Customs.  For their own safety.

Third, although it is true there are special places in Hell reserved for those who fall short of the Loving Expectations of God, this is not one of those cases.  Lance Cpl. Bruce can rest assured that Jesus will walk with him as he suffers through persecution from secularists who are not nearly as forgiving about mistaken cases of identity as is God….particularly when muslims are involved.

    On this Veterans Day, we have much to reflect on regarding our past and much to think about regarding our future.  We also have many people to honor.

The events of last week at Fort Hood in Texas have punctuated the importance of this year’s Veterans Day, and not only for the sake of the 13 soldiers lost in that massacre. This year, those events of a just a few days ago, only underscore how quickly things can change and how unexpectedly life and freedom can be taken away. It is all the more reason we must honor  those who are willing to, at anytime and for any reason in the service of this nation, face the same fate as the Fort Hood 13, as they serve and defend the United States to save our own lives and defend our own freedoms.

Unlike Memorial Day which is dedicated to the celebration of and tribute to the members of the military who died after serving our nation, Veterans Day is set aside to share heartfelt thanks and honors to the still living veterans of past military service and to those currently serving. This day is for those who have survived their commitment . It is for all those who during both, times of peace and of war,   have lived up to the commitment they made when they raised their right hand and stated;

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

That oath is one that requires a great deal of devotion to, and faith in nation, to uphold.  And whether it was taken during peacetime or wartime, the bravery needed to face the possibilities in an unknown future is not lost on any who take that oath.   Be it a teenager or young 20 something taking the oath after throwing their mortar boards in the air at high school or college graduation, or the married paramedic and mother who took the oath after shuttling the injured to hospitals from the wreckage of 9/11, these men and women bravely know that they may be called upon to, at any time, test their ability to live up to their commitment.

And lest we forget, currently, We Are A Nation At War.

That fact seems to often be lost on so many in society, who live lives of luxury, with their IPod plugged ears, big screen plasma TV’s and fat free double mocha mint Starbuck latte’s. With the conveniences of modern life and the riches of capitalism and access to it for all, it is easy for us to forget about the hundreds of thousand of Americans waking up under sand blown canopies as the sound of rocket propelled grenades explode 100 feet away from their makeshift, temporary shelters.

Yes. We Are At War.

So if this Veterans Day is nothing special to you——IT SHOULD BE!!!!

Have you even thanked a soldier? Have you offered to help collect and send even a thank you card to one of them for Christmas, let alone a Thanksgiving care package?

Yes, this is Veterans Day and We Are At War.

Many of us may not fully realize what that means, but the men and woman of Fort Hood do. The soldiers handing out candy to Iraqi and Afghani children so that the war-torn children will tell them where insurgents are hiding out, know it.   And so does the skinny, scared kid who is, having his head shaved right now while his drill sergeant is taunting him with deafening shouts during boot camp, and wondering if his decision to serve, protect, and defend our nation was the right one to make.

Yes this is Veterans Day and Yes, We Are At War.

Don’t let that kid in boot camp think he made the wrong decision and don’t let the mother fighting for us in Afghanistan and yearning to see her children for Thanksgiving, think that we don’t care or don’t appreciate her sacrifices.

Yup, this is Veterans Day.  So what are you going to do about it? 

For a history of the Veterans Day holiday, please visit Military.com here.

Also,——there are many worthy charitable organizations that extend our fighting men and women hands of appreciative offerings and recognition.  Below is just one such organization.  Click on the image to visit the Army Emergency Relief organization.  It would at least be a start for you.

Hat tip to Polycarp at The Church of Jesus Christ.

I have to disagree with Polycarp, though, in his assessment of the AFA’s position, stated here by Director of Issues Analysis Bryan Fischer. Polycarp said of this piece that it’s “stupid.”

It’s worse than stupid. Stupid is when you can’t tell the difference between Shia and Sunni. Stupid is when you don’t know the difference between a Ba’athist regime and an Islamist one. Stupid is when you don’t know the difference between a Kurd, a Persian, or an Arab.

This position, taken by the AFA’s director of issues analysis, is that Muslims should not be allowed to serve in the US military AT ALL until they are able to provide a fool-proof test of their innocence. It is beyond stupid. It’s flagrantly un-American. It’s nothing less than evil, to be blunt about it.

Although the post went up last week, I’m seeing it for the first time on Veterans’ Day, which only makes it more disgusting.

There are about 15,000 Muslims serving in the US military. Many of them have been in combat, some of them get killed, and they go about their service with the dignity and honor befitting a member of the US armed services.

What makes this commentary genuinely evil, rather than hopelessly misguided, is that Mr. Fischer even acknowledges that reality:

Of course, most U.S. Muslims don’t shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine.

So, let’s let the offenses of a tiny minority justify the trampling of freedom for a vast majority? Is this really what the American Family Association supports? Are you kidding?

As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we’ll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you’re right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it’s used, and we’ll welcome you back with open arms.

By this (to use the word loosely) logic, no Roman Catholic priest should be allowed near children, because some of them have been child molesters. Certainly not a majority, mind you, and not even a particularly large minority, but some of them.

Mr. Fischer runs afoul of the Constitution, to boot. A brief perusal of the Bill of Rights and you’ll come across a few problems with his idea.

You can’t get past the First Amendment, of course, before there’s a problem:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

If this isn’t a violation of the principle of “free exercise thereof,” then nothing is. I don’t think I should even need to elaborate. If it’s not self-evident, then you’ve got problems that I can’t help.

We’re not done with the Bill of Rights yet, though. We get no farther than the Fifth Amendment when we find:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law? “Due process,” by the way, means that you have a chance to defend yourself. We don’t presume guilt in this country, it’s one of the things that defines the US as different from the modern world, and certainly different from the European traditions from which we emerged after the Revolution.

Mr. Fischer, after throwing away the Bill of Rights as it pertains to Muslims, goes on to lie about world, especially Christian, history:

It’s time we all got over the nonsense that all cultures and religions are equally valid or worthy. They most certainly are not. While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence

Mr. Fischer has apparently never heard of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Manifest Destiny, “White Man’s Burden,” the conflict in Northern Ireland, or the like. Christians have killed a lot of people in God’s name. Is it wrong? Of course it is. But if we’re talking about cultural history, we have to be honest about Christendom.

And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.

(Deleted several profane comments.) How many Muslims do you know? How many have ever tried to kill you? I’ve known several Muslims, and not one has ever tried to kill me.

If you are tempted by Mr. Fischer’s column, then I want you to think about exactly what you’re saying: you are saying that the Founders were wrong when they said that we could have a functioning society while protecting the rights of individuals to be treated as individuals.

Mr. Fischer is appealing to nothing short of bigotry. He is appealing to the lowest and most base emotional reactions in his readers. He spits on the Bill of Rights, and on the service of thousands of men and women serving in uniform. As is often the case with people who declare that the military should do things their way, Mr. Fischer has never served in the military in any capacity, according to his AFA biography.

On a related note, NPR’s Michele Norris spoke to Imam Yahya Hendi, the Muslim chaplain at the National Naval Medical Center and Georgetown University, who had met Nidal Hasan several years ago. Among the highlights:

So, that made me think then that he was loyal to his country and to America, and he wants to continue doing so. Once, after a Friday service in another incident, after I gave my sermon literally condemning terrorism and extremism, he came to me after the service and told me how much he supported my ideas. Telling me that Imam, I agree with you, there should be no room in Islam or Muslim life for extremism or terrorism, and we all have to speak one voice of peace and love for all.

Much chatter has focused on Hasan’s blogging and various other contacts, but I haven’t heard much mention of this fact — that Hasan expressed a religiously-focused dislike of terrorism.

This post is going very long, so I’ll wrap it up. However, I did want to mention that in Copolla, Dr. Copolla makes mention of various Iraqi locals who help with the hospital. Muslims, every one of them, and among his best helpers and friends. He has contact with Iraqi doctors at the Baghdad hospital, also Muslims, the parents of children he helps, and so on. I can’t help but notice that these are the people on whom Mr. Fischer is pouring his vitriol.

Lastly, he’s doing it on behalf of a Christian organization. Hatred is not Christian virtue.

I can’t think of a single way in which Mr. Fischer’s column doesn’t deserve to be condemned. It’s un-American, un-Christian, detrimental to the military, and would undermine both of our active war efforts.

Whipping Boys, the realm of the elites… Well, folks, there is yet another whipping boy out there. (Hat Tip to Kurt) True to form, the whipping boy had little to actually do with what was done. Guilt by association is the tried and true methodology involved.

The Brady Foundation et al, are, to be blunt… Incapable of rational thought, much less abstract application. As in, what’s the cause, not just the methodology. It’s no wonder that they capitalize on grief. They feed on the grief of others, while Paramedics, Firefighters, and Peace Officers look for solutions.

That people such as the “Brady Bunch” capitalize, as in make money for political and monetary gain? Is, in my sense of being? Immoral. Yes, I am well aware that it is in fact impossible to prove how many lives have been utterly destroyed by their lies, deceptions, and misconstruing of the most simple things.

Yet? To use a tool? To address human failure? As in how the tool was used..?

From From THINK PROGRESS:

Ensuring that insurers don’t reject any American for health coverage because of a pre-existing condition is a top priority of the public. Republicans have repeatedly said that they also want to make this change, but in the alternative legislation they released, Americans with pre-existing conditions would still be left out to dry.

Today on CNN, FreedomWorks head Dick Armey defended the industry’s discriminatory practices by saying that if you have diabetes because you “eat like a pig,” you don’t deserve coverage:

ARMEY: But now, they [government officials] come along and they say, irrespective of the fact they’ve gone 20, 30, 40 years of their adult life without ever having bought insurance prior to getting a liver inflammation due to their excessive drinking habits or diabetes because they eat like a pig, you must now insure them.

Original DVD cover

In reality, these pre-existing conditions that can disqualify people from receiving health insurance often have nothing to do with unhealthy lifestyle choices — and they disproportionately target women. Some pre-existing conditions are having a Caesarean-section pregnancy, being a victim of domestic violence, or being a victim of rape. Most individual health insurance markets don’t even cover maternity care. Other pre-existing conditions that insurers have used to either deny people outright or charge exorbitant fees for coverage include being an expectant father, having acne, or being a police officer.

Many Republicans, like Armey, seem unable to grasp that denial based on pre-existing conditions is discriminatory. Last week, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said that insurers are justified in charging women more than men because we’re “all different.” He then compared a woman to a “smoker” and a man to a “non-smoker” to argue that insurers should be allowed to discriminate.

Armey also recently told the New York Times that the “largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too overinsured.” (He’s wrong.)

(Transcript and video at THINK PROGRESS link above)

When Nidal Malik Hasan, a military psychiatrist allegedly opened fire on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood last week, it opened another chapter in the ongoing saga of whether or not Islam is a threat to civilized society. One of the most compelling arguments against Islam has been the assertion that no Muslim ever publicly condemns religious based violence. So I was eager to find some condemnation in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre. First, I saw a headline in the Huffington Post that gave me hope:

Muslim, Arab Groups Condemn Fort Hood Shooting, Brace For Backlash

Alas, the article was more about Muslim groups preparing for backlash than it was about them delivering an unqualified condemnation. Then on MSNBC’s “Hardball” there was an interview with the national director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad. The interview almost immediately descended into defensiveness and claims of victimhood with any condemnation of the violence being secondary. I was becoming frustrated. I was beginning to despair that the very vocal critics of Islam who frequent my blog were right and I was wrong.

Then on a subsequent edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball”, I hit pay dirt. Chris Matthews’ guest was Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. If you can ignore the host’s speechifying and focus on what Dr. Jasser has to say, this clip is well worth watching.

Here are some of the key statements from Jasser that resonated with me:

I will tell you, my parents came here. They taught me. And the reason I joined the military was, this country was able to give my family the protection, the freedom, the liberty to practice our faith like we could nowhere else in the world. …

However, that’s our Islam. There are other forms of Islam that are a threat. And we have to be careful that political correctness is driving us away from protecting ourselves from the enemy within and from the enemy abroad. And there is a political ideology that has masked itself within a theology that I love, but we can’t deny.

It’s time for Muslims to stop complaining and stop being victims, and say, you know, what we have to start within combating, no different than at the time of the American Revolution. They determined that there were Christians that were part of the Church of England, that were enemies of America, and there were Christians that believed in a country based on the Establishment Clause and based on freedom and liberty, that were about what the west was about.

… political Islam has made huge advances, while the West has been asleep against the spread of the, quote unquote, Islamic state movement. And I think clearly there are parts of the ideologies of hate of the West, of America, of conspiracy theories that this guy started to follow that were warning signs. via ‘Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for Monday, November 9 – Hardball with Chris Matthews- msnbc.com.

Without flinching, Dr. Jasser stated that there is a faction within Islam that is indeed dangerous. He confirmed my belief that the answer to our problem is for more Muslims who take messages of love and brotherhood from the Koran and discard the rest, to rise up and oppose the fanatical branch of the religion.

I am no authority on organized religion, nor a particular fan of it. However, history teaches us that reform within a religion is possible. Whether it is the Protestant reformation that strove to drive financial corruption out of the church, or the modern efforts of the Catholic church to wake up to an insidious pedophilia problem or the evolution of Mormonism to reject polygamy as a fundamental cultural phenomenon (albeit under pressure from the US government). There is no reason why Islam cannot be righted by peaceful, law-abiding and outspoken members of that faith.

There are those who want to deport Muslims from this country, stop immigration of Muslims, and essentially outlaw the practice of the religion within the US. Nothing could be more antithetical to the essence of what it is to be an American. The only decent solution to the problems that modern-day Islam presents us is to align ourselves with people like Dr. Jasser to ensure that the peaceful worship of Allah prevails and the barbaric violence of decadent Muslims comes to an end.

For more information on Dr. Jasser’s organization, visit the web site for the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

I’m no lover of President Obama, as has been obvious from previous posts, but I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt if at all possible.  But missing the 20th anniversary ceremonies at the Berlin Wall, and his imperceptibly slow decisions regarding Afghanistan are absolutely and outrageously illogical.

Berlin 20th Anniv of Wall's Fall-Brit PM Gordon Brown, Fr Pres Nicolas Sarkozy, Germ Chancellor Angela Merkel, Rus Pres Dmitry Medvedev, Germ Pres Horst Koehler & Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit

Rational thinkers would at least succumb to historical precedence (if not honor!) to be among those photographed at the Brandenburg Gate twenty years after the wall came tumbling down.  Was this so difficult a task for a narcissist because of his huge Reagan intimidation complex?  Word of advice: the world is bigger than you are, sir.  And no one’s cares how “busy” your schedule was.  So in this instance because Sarcozy was not blind to the reality of the world and is indeed a gentleman, even the French have a better understanding of foreign affairs.

But the illogical decisions don’t end with the European theatre.  Our’s is such a small world in this ‘globalist’ economy…  our leader has displayed an embarrassing void of leadership and “[c]ampaigning is still getting in the way of leadership” (Warren).  In Afghanistan, Obama has been unable, or unwilling, to make critical defense decisions, as is evidenced by the the four-month lag time between General Stanley McChrystal’s urgent request for more troops and yesterday’s monumental world anniversary.

When our president and his administration go to war against the former administration and Fox News channel, but do not give our generals on the ground the troops that they need to win the war, something is definitely amiss. Instead of a trip to Dover Air Force Base to greet the dead coming home, Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan to protect them from dying. (Norris)

Instead of a “McChrystal light” alternative that is based upon partisan preferences and a delayed political move to force a Nov. 7 Afghan re-election, Obama should provide immediate and complete compliance to our generals’ expert analysis and requests that is based upon the protection of our troops and the success of the mission. So much for Obama’s campaign promise, “I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority that it should be.” President Obama, stop riding the fence!  (Norris)

Since it’s apparent we’re not getting off this merry-go-round anytime soon, we might as well enjoy the ride…  Barry Farber’s take is droll enough to crack a smile on even the most hardened skeptic, so think about what you’re going to do to help the troops for the holidays (see Chuck Norris’ article below for one option) and read on, McDuff, read on…

Can you imagine what that does to the pro-democracy – and unashamedly pro-American – elements inside Iran? It’s like survivors on a life raft in the ocean, who see a scout plane and yell and wave and pray – but the plane fails to see them and drones on out of sight. And has America’s willingness to “shake your hand if you unclench your fist” had any better results with North Korea? The naïveté of Barack Obama is manufacturing contempt for America like North Carolina manufactures cigarettes.

Where might we find an American diplomatic success? Newspapers in Poland and the Czech Republic are cussing us out for our “Yalta” encore in scrapping the missile shield, a concession to Russia for which we got zero in return. Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal within grabbing distance of al-Qaida and the Taliban, is an elephant dangling over a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy. Wasn’t there supposed to be a success somewhere? Afghanistan? The Olympics, maybe? Honduras? Has this president ever uttered the word “Darfur”?

[...]

Obama is not the first president who has led us poorly. He’s merely the first who has led us so predictably poorly.

A final proverb, this one Greek, tells us, “If you want to see wolves, act like a sheep.”

The president’s report card reminds us of the hapless student who had to show his parents the dismal printout of four F’s and one D. His excuse was that he’d been spending all his time on one subject.

And that must have been “Advanced Apology.”

Sources:

Neoavatara: Obama The Clueless

The Political Commentator  It’s Not Just Me

When Foreign Policy Becomes Foreign Ineptitude by William Warren (NetRightNation)

Special Report: A Clear-Eyed View of the Obama Regime by Bill Wilson (NetRightNation)

Tear Down This Presidency! by Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs)

President Obama, Time to Make a Decision by Chuck Norris (WND)

In Defense of a Pathetic Presidency by Barry Farber (WND) – very amusing!

Where's Walbama?: http://wp.me/pzfHB-i5 

Major Hasan and Treason
by
Erin Solaro

The issue is not whether Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a terrorist.  It is whether or not he is a traitor.

Here are the known facts.

Major Hasan, a field grade officer in an Army of a nation at war contacted and maintained contact with for an unknown period, an imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, known to be linked to al-Qaeda, who is, if not a known operating agent, most certainly a known agent of influence. Major Hasan was a medical officer, not an intelligence or foreign service officer acting under orders and supervision.

Major Hasan’s emails have been described as pursuant to his official duties researching post-traumatic stress disorder, and their contents as relatively benign. “Relatively benign” is, of course, only in relationship to their very existence, which was profoundly malevolent. We can say with near-certainty that any information on PTSD al-Awlaki could have offered Major Hasan, Major Hasan could have obtained from far less problematic sources: Jonathan Shay, one of the world’s preeminent experts on combat trauma, is extremely approachable and if Major Hasan did not know of him, he was beyond incompetent. There is simply no good reason for a military field grade medical officer to contact someone like Anwar al-Awlaki. The standard of prudence for a field grade officer is not the standard of prudence for Private Snuffy or Joe Bag of Donuts.

We also know that Major Hasan is alleged to have cried Allahu Akbar while killing and wounding dozens of his fellow Americans. That is a jihadi war cry.

At this point, it is time to drop the nonsense about terrorism and the other nonsense about PTSD and understand that Major Hasan’s attack was an act of treason. The more so since Muslims kill other Muslims all the time. Nor was it an act of existential and professional anguish, such as locking himself in his office and downing too many pills and too much alcohol, or hacking up his wrists and bleeding all over his copy of Achilles in Vietnam. Or his case notes.

If Major Hasan is found to be sane according to the McNaughton Rule and there are not enormous extenuating circumstances, his acts were those of treason, not terrorism. 

Major Hasan chose to ally himself with enemies of his country and kill and wound his country’s soldiers. That meets the definition of treason laid down in the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” And this is true whether he acted alone, as is likely, or with accomplices.

Hat Tip to Texas Fred. Political correctness is a demon that tries the patience of the best of us. For my part, it the epitome of dishonesty.

Read on;