Islamophobia- Koran Burning-Censorship

When it comes to Islamophobia, there is no end of craven cowardice. Our elected and appointed leaders seem devoid of spinal & testicular fortitude. They demonstrate their abject fear of Islam by attempting to appease it through condemnation and censorship of free speech.

    Texas v. Johnson,  stands as precedent for protecting flag burning as a mode of free speech. [Wikipedia]   The flag is a symbol of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Burning it in protest demonstrates enmity to our precious rights & liberties.  If that act is protected free expression, how can expressing contempt for a war cult that inculcates hatred and incites genocidal jihad/terror be any less protected? 

Bare Naked Islam sounded an early warning: Reid & Graham consider ban on Koran burning.

"I  wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,"

"During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy," Graham said, adding that he wanted to do "anything we can to push back here in America against acts like this that put our troops at risk."

.

put our troops at risk

    Pastors Jones & Sapp did not put our troops at risk; President G.W. Bush sent them into harm's way. The accursed abomination should have been answered with tactical nuclear warheads, not boots on the ground.  Sending troops to "liberate" people who prefer to remain slaves is a fool's errand of the worst sort.  So long as the population of Afghanistan remains Muslim, we have lost; our blood and treasure has been wasted. 

    Provocations are desired and sought to rationalize jihad and motivate the rabble to participate, but they are not the cause of Islamic violence.  Islamic violence is doctrine driven, not grievance driven. 

• 2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
  • Footnote to 2:190. (V.2:190) Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His Religion (Islâm) is propagated. By abandoning Jihâd (may Allâh protect us from that) Islâm is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihâd is an obligatory duty in Islâm on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
    Narrated ‘Abdullâh bin Mas‘ûd رضي الله عنه: I asked Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم "O Allâh’s Messenger! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the Salât (prayers) at their early fixed stated times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause." I did not ask Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more. (Sahih Al-Bukhâri, Vol.4, Hadîth No.41).
• 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
• 9:29.Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
• 9:120.  It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allah's Messenger (Muhammad SAW when fighting in Allah's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allah, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allah wastes not the reward of the Muhsinun
• 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).  
• Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
  Narrated Anas bin Malik:
  Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." 
• Reliance of the Traveller

  O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

  Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2).  When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

  "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,"

  and Allah Most High having said:

  "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95).

  If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

  The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.

  The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).

• Al-Hedaya Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1
  • Page 141  The destruction of the sword  is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the  sacred writings which are generally received this effect.
  • Marginal note: Page 140
    
    • War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims.

   

"During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy," Graham said, adding that he wanted to do "anything we can to push back here in America against acts like this that put our troops at risk."

    Flip your calender back  66 years. Should an American citizen be punished for criticizing, condemning or burning Mein Kampf?  Why, exactly?  The     major difference between Mein Kampf and the Qur'an is the latter's purported divine origin.

    Our troops and our society were put at risk by the weakness of previous Presidents.  Carter responded with dithering timidity when our Embassy was seized. When he finally acted, his action was poorly planned and ineffectually implemented.  Displaying weakness to a predator invites further attacks.

    Reagan sent the Marines to save Arafat's bacon, a fool's errand if there ever was one. Hundreds of Marines died as a result. Reagan reacted with a few artillery shells; he should have erased the Hezbollah enclaves in Lebanon.

The Wall Street Journal reveals some interesting remarks from Gen. David Petraeus.

"This was a surprise,"

    The event was publicized months in advance on a web site, in press releases and a Facebook page.  I know that the government knew about it because the Department of Homeland Security read my blog posts about it well in advance of the event.  The OIC was aware of it immediately and held an emergency meeting four days after the event to draft a  letter to Ban Ki-moon.

"hateful, extremely disrespectful and enormously intolerant."

    In view of the doctrine outlined above, hatred disrespect & intolerance of Islam's demonic scripture is certainly well warranted.  Bitter kvetching about those attitudes is evidence of extreme intellectual incapacity or inactivity.

    From Newsmax we learn that the Majority leader of the Senate is aroused.

“We’ll take a look at this of course. As to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Reid: Probe of Quran Burning Considered

    George Washington said it best: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
That is exactly what Islam demands. Islamic law forbids any and every negative expression about itself.

• Reliance of the Traveller

  • O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

    (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

    -1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

    -2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

    -3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

    -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

    -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

    -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

    -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

    -8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is'';

    -9- to reply to someone who says, ``There is no power or strength save through Allah''; ``Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc,' won't save you from hunger'';

    -10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, ``This is through the decree of Allah,'' to reply, ``I act without the decree of Allah'';

    -11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also ``kafir'');

    -12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, ``La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah'' (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

    -13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

    -14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

    -15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

    (n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following:

    -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

    -17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

    -18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

    -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

    -20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

    There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

If a Muslim says any of those things, he is an apostate, and must be killed.

•  

  • O8.1

    When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

    O8.2

    In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

How does that apply to non-Muslims?  When Muslims conquer Christians, the Christians must agree to a treaty of protection and pay Jizya. The treaty imposes certain limitations on them, and if they violate it, they are subject to execution.

•  

  • O11.10

    The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

    -1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

    -2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

    -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

    -4- kills a Muslim;

    -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

  • O11.11

    When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

    • O9.14

      When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

      If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

    The list of impermissible expressions is contained in O8.7, reproduced above.  That is what they seek to impose upon us at the UN through resolutions and a binding protocol to ICERD.  The mobs demand that Pastor Jones be executed.

Sphere: Related Content

Citizen Letter Condemning Harry Reid's Attack on Rush Limbaugh & Free Speech

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his liberal cohorts
are aggressively attacking Rush Limbaugh by twisting and
manipulating the truth. Their ultimate goal is to silence
not only Rush, but you and me.

The Media Research Center has just launched a Citizen Letter
that will be sent to Sen. Reid denouncing his baseless actions.
As well as to Clear Channel as a demonstration of the MRC Action
Team’s support of Rush. Their goal is to rally 50,000 citizen
signers over the next 72 hours.

I have signed the letter and am urging you to do the same simply
by clicking here:

http://www.mrcaction.org/507/petition.asp?PID=14570672&NID=1

(Note: after adding your name to the letter you can also review
the attack against Rush from the same page.)

Again, the MRC is mobilizing 50,000 citizens over the next
72 hours to oppose the mean-spirited actions of Harry Reid
and others attempting to silence Rush. Please take immediate
action by clicking here:

http://www.mrcaction.org/507/petition.asp?PID=14570672&NID=1

Thanks for joining with me.

Miss Kateri Jordan

P.S. After adding your name, please alert your friends and family
and urge them to take action with you!

Sphere: Related Content

Fighting Fire with Fire: A Call To Action

Cross Posted From Wake up America as requested by the wonderful Miss Beth.

The left is banding together on a call to action of sorts and for once, I am going to agree with them and encourage the Right to join in and let OUR voices and OUR message be heard to counter the voices of the Retreat in Defeat Crowd.

Never let it be said, I didn't agree, once in a while, with an idea from a liberal rag.

If you agree, call Sen. Harry Reid today: he can be reached at 202-224-3542 in DC and 702-388-5020 in Nevada. For reasons why this is important, see here. Or you can use the following toll-free numbers (H/T to katymine for these):

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

Lets counter those hateful voices that have but one wish: To force America to surrender with our wish: To achieve Victory and to let General Petraeus continue with the amazing success he and our troops have been achieving over the last month.

Still here? Come on!!!! Pick up that phone and start dialing. Keep dialing. Don't let up.

Harry "Baghdad" Reid wants an all night session? Lets give him one.

Related to Iraq:
Right Truth shows us "The Reaper".

More from Michelle Malkin on Reid's all nighter.

Sphere: Related Content

Senator Reid's Amnesty for Terrorists Bill

The facts demonstrate that illegal alien amnesty bills have already helped five terrorists kill Americans! FSM Contributing Editor Andy Selepak asks, "Why do we tolerate the spectacle of our government officials putting our lives at risk?"

Family Security Matters

By Andy Selepak

After the capture by federal authorities of six alleged Muslim terrorists, three of whom were illegal aliens, charged with planning a terrorist attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was quoted by ABC News on May 10, 2007, as saying, “I think it would be a real tragedy if we tried to make this immigration debate one dealing with terrorism.”

Reid thinks it would be a tragedy if the debate over immigration addressed how potential terrorists enter the United States? Isn’t the purpose of an immigration bill to regulate and restrict who enters this country? Shouldn’t it be a given that terrorists are to be kept out of the U.S.?

On one level, Reid’s statement might be seen as a gaffe or misstatement. Politicians make them occasionally. But in light of the Fort Dix case, his statement must be seen as far worse. It should be viewed as designed to ignore a problem that continues to pose a mortal danger to every American. That’s why the Senate’s amnesty legislation has to be derailed before politicians make a bad situation even worse.

Nevertheless, Reid got away with this shocking statement because the media, like the Democrats, President Bush and some Republicans, have a blind spot on how America’s immigration policy has facilitated the entry into the U.S. of people who want to kill us.

We should recall the facts about the so-called “Fort Dix Six.” They included Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer, 22, from Jordan; Eljvir Duka, 23, Dritan Duka, 28, and Shain Duka, 26, all from the former Yugoslavia and ethnic Albanians; Serder Tatar, 23, from Turkey; and Argon Abdullahu, 24, from the former Yugoslavia and an ethnic Albanian. Abdullahu is charged with helping the Dukas illegally obtain firearms. Only Shnewer was a U.S. citizen, Tatar and Abdullahu were described by the Post as being “legal residents,” and the three Duka brothers were all residing in the U.S. illegally.

The Star Ledger reported on May 10, 2007, that “The Duka family entered the United States illegally through Mexico in October 1984,” including the three brothers’ mother and father, Zurata and Ferik Duka.

Senator Reid’s statement about separating the immigration debate from terrorism represents a break with reality. Why isn’t he held accountable by our media for this blindness?

Although three of the Fort Dix Six were illegal aliens, they were not uncovered by the U.S. immigration system, the Patriot Act, the FBI, or the CIA. According to the May 9 Washington Post, the would-be terrorists were “undone after attempting to have jihad training tapes copied onto a DVD.” The paper noted that “Had they not offered up an alleged jihadist video to be duplicated at a nearby Circuit City, they might never have been spotted.”

It should not have come down to the terrorists’ stupidity that led them to be caught. The fact is that the Duka brothers would never have had the opportunity to train in the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania, or film their training, if it were not for a broken U.S. immigration system. And all this only six years after 9/11, when terrorist attacks carried out by foreign nationals, here both legally and illegally, killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

The 1993 World Trade Center bombings and September 11thshould have prompted an immediate overhaul of our badly broken immigration system, but Reid doesn’t want the terrorist threat to get in the way of allowing millions of illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. and making a large number of them U.S. citizens and Democratic Party constituents. Short-term political gain trumps keeping America safe.

In the Fort Dix case, American soldiers and civilians were needlessly put in danger and almost killed because our government refuses to enforce our immigration laws.

Hundreds could have been killed and/or wounded, and the blame would have fallen onPresident Bush, both political parties and both Houses of Congress. Our immigration system is broken, but so is our government. We have a federal system of government unable or unwilling to protect and defend our borders.

While the Dukas had evaded immigration authorities for 23 years, they had not avoided the New Jersey police. They had been stopped dozens of times a year for speeding, illegal passing and driving without a license. In addition, on May 10, the WashingtonPost reported that Dritan Duka pleaded guilty in 2000 to possession of drug paraphernalia and Shain Duka to possession of marijuana.

The article continued that “Only one brother had a driver’s license, and only briefly. But they drove anyway and were ticketed regularly by Cherry Hill police…” In fact, “The three had their driving privileges suspended¯meaning they could not even apply for a license¯54 times in less than a decade.”

Incredibly, the Post reported that “William Kushina, a Cherry Hill Police Department spokesman, said the department could do nothing about serial unlicensed driving except continue to issue tickets and suspend privileges.”

The incompetent enforcement of our immigration laws at the federal level is also evident at the local level. Meanwhile, the American people remain vulnerable to attack. Illegal aliens, including potential terrorists, seem to break laws at will, confident they will never be caught, or if they are, never deported.

In this case, it was a clerk at Circuit City that prevented what would have been a massive attack on a U.S. military base on U.S. soil. Thankfully, an individual with a conscience saved the day. Our government at many levels failed us. But now the federal government wants to give amnesty to even more illegal aliens on American soil who may be potential terrorists.

The fact that illegal aliens were planning a deadly attack on American soldiers and on U.S. soil at a military base is lost on supporters for amnesty for illegals. ABC News reported that Democrats, for instance, “reject the argument” that the Duka brothers or Abdullahu prove anything.

Sadly, this is an old story of the government providing amnesty to illegal aliens and ignoring the consequences. Our government never learns, essentially guaranteeing another terrorist attack.

According to a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report from September 2005, “of 94 terrorists who operated in the United States between the early 1990s and 2004, including six of the September 11th hijackers…about two-thirds (59) committed immigration fraud prior to or in conjunction with taking part in terrorist activity.” But they stayed in the U.S. anyway. The September 2005 CIS report discloses that, in 1983, “9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM)…enrolled first at Chowan College, a Baptist school in Murfreesboro, North Carolina, and then at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro. There, one of his classmates was Ramzi Yousef’s brother, who himself later became an al-Qaeda member while Yousef planned the 1993 World Trade Center and Bojinka plots with KSM.”

In a report entitled “The Open Door, How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered and Remained in the United States, 1993-2001” the CIS reported that “Past amnesties for illegal aliens have facilitated terrorism. Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the 1993 Trade Center bombing, was legalized as a seasonal agricultural worker as part of the 1986 amnesty.”

The report says that Mohammed Salameh, another conspirator in the 1993 Trade Center bombing, “applied for the same amnesty as Abouhalima and was denied” but “continued to live and work in the United States illegally and ultimately took part in the 1993 attack.”

The bottom line is that illegal alien amnesty bills help terrorists kill Americans.

The September 2005 CIS report also states that “The 1986 amnesty program was fraudulently used five times in attempts to establish residency. One terrorist, Mir Aimal Kansi, sought amnesty under the 1986 law for illegal entrants. Four others, three convicted for their roles in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and one in the 1993 Landmarks case, sought amnesty under the Special Agricultural Workers Program. Three who sought amnesty under this program attained it.”

Nevertheless, Senator Reid, with White House support, wants to push a similar amnestybill. The new bill includes all the same enforcement provisions that were included in the 1986 bill but never carried out. The only difference between then and now is there are now more illegal aliens in this country. There were less than 3 million illegal aliens in the U.S. in 1986. But, depending on estimates, there are now between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S.

So here’s the question: if five terrorists used the 1986 Amnesty bill in attempts to establish residency, what happens now that there might be ten times as many illegal immigrants in this country? Could there be 20 terrorists illegally living in the U.S. right now who could be granted amnesty by a new “comprehensive immigration reform” bill? Could there be 50? 100? Or More?
Voting in favor of an amnesty bill under these circumstances is tantamount to turning a blind eye to terrorists on American soil plotting to kill Americans. Why do we tolerate the spectacle of our government officials putting our lives at risk?

Let’s build the fence and identify and isolate the illegal aliens. Then, at the very least, let’s immediately deport those with terrorist ties before they try to kill us again. This is the only “immigration reform” that makes any sense.

Why can’t Bush, Democrats and Republicans agree on that? Why do they insist on putting us all in danger? And why won’t the media do their jobs and insist on a solution that will protect America from another terrorist attack?

Dean

Sphere: Related Content

harry reid & nancy pelosi Are About To Get an Earful!!

Cross posted from Spree at Wake Up America:

I mentioned this in my earlier post, but this deserves to be seen in full, on its own.From Oppose Reid.com:

MEDIA ADVISORY -

May 15, 2007

CONTACT: Robert Dixon robert@moveamericaforward.org

CARSON CITY PROTEST EVENT AGAINST HARRY REID ADDED

Pro-Troop Organization to Hold “Surrender is Not an Option” Protests Against Harry Reid in Carson City & Las Vegas

In response to the efforts by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to undercut support for the missions of our troops in Iraq, pro-troop supporters will be conducting protests outside the district offices of Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 10:30 AM Pacific Time.

A protest against Senator Harry Reid will take place outside of Reid’s district offices in Carson City & Las Vegas. The Carson City protest has been added in response to the wishes of local grassroots activists who are furious with Reid’s efforts to cut funding for our troops serving in Iraq and his recent declaration that, “the war is lost.”

Local grassroots activist, Eric Odom, will be heading up the newly added Carson City event.

The protests are being organized by Move America Forward (website: www.MoveAmericaForward.org), the nation’s largest grass-roots, pro-troop organization and will be called “Surrender is Not an Option.” The protests will include picketers carrying white “surrender flags” to mock the defeatist approach offered by Reid & Pelosi.

“The anti-war movement and their leaders in Congress have gotten too far ahead of themselves and they are now going to experience the backlash from the American people. If these anti-war advocates won’t stand behind our troops then maybe they should stand in front of them on the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

On Thursday May 17th at 10:30 AM, Move America Forward will be holding “Surrender Is Not an Option” rallies at the offices of speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. The Grassroots organization is asking that its members bring white “surrender flags” to show their displeasure with Reid and Pelosi.

The protests against Harry Reid will take place outside of his offices at these locations:

LAS VEGAS

333 Las Vegas Boulevard South,

Suite 8016,

Las Vegas, NV 89101

CARSON CITY

600 East William St, #302,

Carson City, NV 89701

“We’re not going to sit back any longer and allow politicians and anti-war groups to undercut our troops, we’re starting to fight back,” said Melanie Morgan.

The provocative campaign is funded by small donor contributions from tens of thousands of Move America Forward members around the country. For more information please visit www.MoveAmericaForward.Org

Can we say HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH????!!!!???

Double and Triple that HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH for ME as well!

Sphere: Related Content

Iraq officials to push for U.S. support

I've saved the BEST news for last, though (at least, last at this time). It must really, REALLY piss of pelosi, reid, murtha, clinton, durbin, et. al., that Baghdad is asking us to stay.

The link to the story is here. The entire text is below:

Iraq officials to push for U.S. support
By ANNE FLAHERTY,
Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Worried Congress' support for
Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, Baghdad dispatched senior officials to Capitol Hill this week to warn members one-on-one that pulling out U.S. troops would have disastrous consequences.

The lobbying push targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, but focused primarily on those considered influential on the war debate. On Thursday, hours before the House voted to limit funds for the war, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh met with more than 30 House Republicans and more than a half-dozen senators, including Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., John Warner, R-Va., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"He understands that American patience is waning," said Sen. Norm Coleman, after eating lunch with Saleh, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Shakir al-Sumaidaie and Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

But the lobbying by the Iraqis isn't the only pressure-point being applied in Washington.

Clinton said Friday she considered it "promising" that several Republican House members went to the White House and told President Bush they believe the continuing war is adversely affecting the party.

She said the GOP lawmakers told Bush pointblank that "he has to change course in Iraq." But she also said she didn't think that Bush was ready to reverse course.

"I think we're going to go back and forth on this for a while longer," Clinton said in an interview Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program with Joe Scarborough.

"It is clear that whatever the mission used to be, it is either accomplished or over," she said. "If there are remaining American interests, then let's spell them out."

Baghdad's ability to sell members like Coleman, R-Minn., and Chambliss, R-Ga., on the war effort is critical if the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to stay. Coleman in recent months has become deeply skeptical of the president's decision to send additional troops to Iraq and says patience on the war in general is limited.

Coleman, Chambliss and Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H., who met separately with Saleh, will be up for re-election next year — facing voters who have grown tired of a war in its fifth year and that has killed more than 3,380 troops. While Republicans have been reluctant to intervene, many say President Bush has until September to tell if the troop buildup in Iraq is working before they demand another approach.

With the clock ticking, Saleh — a Kurdish politician highly regarded by U.S. officials and who speaks impeccable English — said he came to Capitol Hill to convey the "imperative of success" in Iraq.

"Iraq is a central battleground in this historic conflict" against terrorism, he said in a brief interview after meeting with Reid, the Senate majority leader.

His trip came on the heels of a visit by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, along with three other senior advisers, according to the Iraqi embassy. The New York Times first reported al-Rubaie's visit on Tuesday.
The timing of these meetings is no mistake. This month, Congress is expected to send Bush legislation that funds the war in Iraq but requires the Baghdad government meet certain political and security reforms. In question is what consequences the Iraqis should face if they fail. Democrats want U.S. troops to leave, Republicans say they don't want to force redeployments, but some say they would be open to withholding more than $5 billion in foreign aid.

The House voted 221-205 Thursday for a stronger measure that would fund the war only through July, giving Congress the option of cutting off money after that. The bill is unlikely to survive in the Senate, although it indicates the war's unpopularity among members and their frustration with the lack of progress in the Iraqi parliament.

The most recent irritant among U.S. lawmakers was a report that Iraqi officials would break for two months this summer.

"Our armed forces are up to 150,000 troops; we're over $600 billion appropriated for this, lost 3,300 lives, 25,000 wounded fellow citizens. ... And the Iraqi answer? We're taking a summer off. Goin' fishing," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Saleh said he expects the vacation to be shortened by at least a month, although nothing had been decided. He added that Iraqis value being independent and do "not take kindly of (U.S. officials) telling us when to recess."

Democrats seemed to consider these meetings with Iraqi officials as beneficial — if only to convey their frustration to Iraqi officials in person.

Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said the senator told Saleh that "U.S. patience, blood and treasure were not unlimited and that the Congress would be taking a more decisive role in the coming weeks and months."

"Salih understood the point, and said he would deliver the message to the Iraqi cabinet," Manley added.

Sphere: Related Content

Message to harry reid from the TROOPS

Hat tip to Gazing At The Flag (http://gazingattheflag.blogspot.com/) ; Snooper (http://takeourcountryback.townhall.com/) and Gull (http://perishthethought.blogdrive.com/)

THANK YOU TROOPS FOR SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE TO THIS JACKASS!




Here's the link to the video: http://www.nmatv.com/view_video.php?

Sphere: Related Content

Nevada Editorial Calls Harry Reid BOZO THE CLOWN!

This article came from Wake Up America and I'm cross-posting it here. Seems even Harry's home state is fed up with him. Maybe Nevada will grow a spine this next election and throw this crook out!

Here's the article.

Hat Tip to Don Surber for finding this.

Pretty bad when an editorial in your OWN states newspaper is calling you Bozo the Clown, but due to Harry Reid's idiotic words, that is what has happened.

Enter Sen. Reid, flopping around in big red shoes like Bozo the Clown.

A few weeks ago, Sen. Reid said on a major weekend talk show that he favored a firm deadline for withdrawal of all forces from Iraq. When members of his own caucus said, "What? First we've heard," the senator went into damage control mode -- the kind that starts out with staffers explaining, "What the senator meant to say was ..."

But last week he was back at it. As the Democratic House voted 215-199 Thursday to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year, Sen. Reid appeared in public to declare the war in Iraq is "lost."

"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," responded Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Now, purists may object this is not "a declared war," but that hasn't stopped the Congress from funding it. And in time of war, it's at least incredibly stupid to tell the enemy a fixed date by which the ammo and other supplies of the American troops will be cut off, encouraging the enemy to merely lay low and hold on.

Not all Democrats seem to have such trouble keeping their feet out of their mouths. In a much more defensible yet still realistic statement, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee, differed with Sen. Reid last week, responding, "Our troops won the war clearly, cleanly and quickly. But now they are stuck in a civil war." The only solution to that is a political and diplomatic compromise, Rep. Obey added, "and there is no soldier who can get

that done."

Is that what Harry Reid meant to say?

Friday morning, the majority leader returned to the Senate floor, supposedly to reiterate his Thursday comments. Yet this time Sen. Reid carefully avoided using the word "lost." Less than 24 hours after declaring Iraq a lost cause, Sen. Reid insisted, "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats."

Um ... what?

What he actually meant to say is that Iraq is lost if we continue to follow President Bush's strategy, the Democratic leader explained -- while once more carefully resisting the temptation to put forward any better strategy.

Sen. Reid then attempted the old cushion shot -- "deny everything and make counter-accusations" -- as he sought to shift the blame to those who had criticized him the day before."

The partisans who launched attacks on my comments are the same ones who continue to support a failed strategy that hurts our troops," Sen. Reid said.Ah. But it doesn't "hurt our troops" to tell them -- and the enemy -- that our Marines and G.I.s are risking their lives in a lost cause before they even suit up and start their engines for this morning's patrol?

OUCH.

He deserves it, the man is so busy trying to score political points he never once stopped to consider the damage his words were causing to OUR TROOPS.

Related posts with letters from our ACTIVE MILITARY, telling us exactly how Harry Boys words have hurt them and in one instance says, "Your words are killing us" can be found:

Here at "Harry Reid Once Again Mimics al-Qaeda's Words"

"In Light Of Harry Reids Words- Reposting Tokyo Rose"

"Why Harry Reid Roots for America to Lose"

"An Open Letter to Senator Reid on His Declaration of Defeat"

For the record, let me repeat, sending your indignation and letters as well as emails to Harry Reid will do no good, the man cares about his politics and couldn't give a damn about our soldiers.

Please spend your time sending the GOP leadership your letters and complaints and make sure to demand, as respectfully as possible, that they be read INTO the record on the house and senate floor.

The ONLY way to get Reid to listen is to hurt him politically, so, lets stand up for our toops here at home .

Sphere: Related Content

Madame Speaker Meet General Petraeus

This is an excellent piece from Townhall.com (trackbacked below), sent to me by my friend Cassy.


Madame Speaker, Meet General Petraeus
By John Boehner
Saturday, April 21, 2007

Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they’ll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.


General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week’s important briefing almost didn’t happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined – twice – because Democrats were originally “too busy” to schedule anything.


Too busy? The only thing that could be more important than hearing from the top general in a war effort that is critical to America’s long-term national security would be providing our troops the resources they need to succeed. But Democrats certainly haven’t been busy doing that.


Instead, Democratic leaders pushed through a pork-laden surrender bill that would undermine General Petraeus and our troops on the ground. In an editorial titled “Do We Really Need a General Pelosi,” the Los Angeles Times said the Democrats’ plan is “an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he’ll veto it, as well he should.”


After that, House Democrats left Washington for the first two weeks of April in no apparent hurry to begin negotiations with the Senate on providing our troops with the funding they need. Such delays in funding, says the Secretary of the Army, “carry consequential effects, including substantial disruption to installation functions, decreasing efficiency and potentially further degrading the readiness of non-deployed units.”


Lawmakers often receive information that is filtered through media reports, bolstered by suspect polling data, or drummed up by ideologically-driven activist groups. When it comes to America’s commitment to fighting al Qaeda, this information-deficit can have real consequences.


For example, in a March press conference, General Petraeus insisted that “military action is necessary to help improve security” in Iraq. He also said military force alone “is not sufficient,” a reflection of his new strategy which relies on military, political, and diplomatic force alike. But as is their way, liberal special interest groups seized on that single phrase – military force “is not sufficient” – and presented a false portrait of what the General was saying to give cover to politicians who would rather abandon Iraq to al Qaeda than see it through to victory.


That’s why General Petraeus’ visit to Capitol Hill is so timely – and so important. Members of Congress not only need to hear about the need for a clean troop funding bill, they need to hear from America’s top commander in Iraq about the realities on the ground. Petraeus has said we will make progress even if there are setbacks along the way, and that is exactly what is happening.


The deficit of on-the-ground information has caused some Members to go so far as to outlandishly suggest the war effort is “lost.” That’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters earlier this week, igniting a firestorm of criticism from veterans groups and others who recognize the danger of demoralizing American troops and conceding defeat to al Qaeda.


I would like to challenge my colleagues to not only attend this briefing by General Petraeus, but to come with an open mind. The General has been entrusted with an historic task; he deserves not only our full faith and support, but the courtesy of acknowledging that he knows better than 535 Members of Congress how to succeed in a war effort.


The questions for each member of Congress to consider after Senator Reid’s recent comments are real and they go to the heart at the battle against our enemies:


Do we support our troops? Or do we starve them of resources?


Do we put politics aside during a time of war? Or do we “bleed” America’s military forces in an attempt to derive partisan benefit?


Do we fight to win? Or do we preemptively declare defeat?


The most important question, however, is this: will Members of Congress listen to General Petraeus … or to Democratic leaders who believe they know best?


John Boehner is the Republican Minority Leader for the House of Representatives.

Page link here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnboehner/2007/04/21/madame_speaker,_meet_general_petraeus'

Sphere: Related Content

Harry Reid's Message to the Troops-Pictures Worth Their Weight in Gold!

An invitation for our troops: Letters to Harry Reid

By Michelle Malkin · April 19, 2007 02:43 PM

***Updated with lots of emails for Harry***

Active-duty military readers and military bloggers: If you'd like to send a message to the treacherous Harry Reid--who just declared the war in Iraq lost today--e-mail me or leave a trackback. I'll reprint/link them here as they come in. Here is Reid's contact form. He really needs to hear from you. (And perhaps Jon Voight could talk some sense into him.)

***

Rejoinder: Appeal For Courage.

Related must-read: Michael Totten reports from the ground in Kirkuk:

...Most Americans have soured on the war and want out. I was once optimistic myself, but I no longer am. I can’t help but notice, though, that those I’ve spoken to who actually live in Iraq are more confident and less fatalistic...

...Iraq is a big place. It is more or less the size of California. If a car bomb were to go off in San Diego, it wouldn’t disturb people who live in San Francisco. They would watch the aftermath from safety on TV just as I watched scenes of carnage from safety at Mam Rostam’s in Kirkuk. The war was far away…or at least around a couple of corners. Iraq looks scarier from far away than it does up close and in person…even when you’re in the Red Zone. How much danger you’re in depends on where you are in Iraq. The Red Zone is not one shade of crimson. The war, for the most part, is concentrated mostly in very specific areas. On any given day you might see something violent, but you probably won’t. This fact is completely lost in the breathless media coverage of the carnage, the mayhem, and the bang-bang...

***

Reader Mark:

As a retired Marine officer, I am shocked at the blatant treasonous statement made by an elected "leader" of this country.

The definition of treason is:

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

His words can have a very harmful affect on the troop's morale in the field and clearly will embolden the enemy.

Can anyone imagine if a "leader" gave the signal to the world that the United States is giving up during any engagement in WWII and endorsed a surrender strategy even before a plan was allowed to be executed?

It is not only unpatriotic, and cowardly, but it is treasonous! He may be directing his hatred at the President but clearly his words aid the enemy.

God help this country!

Reader J.G.:

I am an active duty Army National Guard officer serving with the 55th Civil Support Team, Minnesota’s WMD response team. I have not deployed to OIF/OEF yet but spent two tours in Croatia and Bosnia with Operation Joint Forge. Here is my short, concise email to Senator Reid:

USC Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115 § 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

What more is needed to be said?

Reader Matthew:

I am writing this letter as an individual American expressing his right to speak up, even though I am an enlisted active duty Army soldier.

Your statement that the Iraq "war is lost" is irresponsible and is demoralizing to me, on of those “troops”. Your statement also gives hope to an enemy that cannot win in direct confrontations. That by randomly bombing civilians, spreading fear and chaos, it can cause those without strong will to leave the Iraqi people behind to a fate far worse than Saddam's torture chambers.

I disagree that this war is lost. This xenophobic insurgency will fail with the full support of the United States Federal Government. We are doing our jobs here, day in and day out, and we need you to do the same in Washington D.C.

Mr. Reid, sir, I ask you to show courage, the kind I see every day from my colleagues. Stand up and stand firm with me against terrorism, suicide bombings, and social mayhem by backing me up and providing a united front against such horrors.

Will you support me, a soldier in the Army, and stand up against evil?

SPC Matthew S Gangwer

112th Special Operations

Signal Battalion

SIGDET/SOCCENT

MacDill AFB, Tampa Florida

Reader Steven:

Senator Reid,

I am a US Army Reservist. I was activated in March 2005 and served onFOB Abu Ghraib, Iraq from June 2005 until May 2006. I was First Sergeantfor a Medical Task Force responsible for all detainee health care inIraq. My unit was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation for ouraccomplishments and I received the Bronze Star for my achievements. Icertainly hope you can sense the pride I have in my unit and my service.That pride will soon be stripped from me in defeat.

My father is a Vietnam veteran; a Captain in Saigon. Like me, he was avolunteer and was awarded the Bronze Star. He began his tour when I wastwo weeks old. While I was growing up, I heard over and over again inclasses from grade school well into college how the United States lostthe war in Vietnam. I wondered how he could be so proud in defeat. I seenow that it is happening to me how his pride and accomplishments werestripped from him on a rooftop in soon-to-be Ho Chi Minh City.

The Democrats have wanted Iraq to become a Vietnam for George Bush fromthe start. You, sir, finally have your Vietnam parallel. This war hasbeen pure politics for you and the Democrats. You have now concededdefeat when the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Airmenhave not. And my children will have their parallel as well. They willwonder how I can be so proud in defeat. The only question that remainsis whether my defeat will be a dramatic airlift off a rooftop or whetherit will be an impotent crawl across the Kuwait border.

From the beginning you and your ilk have sat on the sidelines, oursidelines, declaring the immorality, illegality, and the futility ofyour country's efforts. In emergency medicine there is an old saying; ifyour patient believes he is dying, he probably will. Your stance on Iraqwill prove to be just that sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. To mychildren, I will have to explain how the war was declared "illegal" by abunch of politicians who readily admit they didn't read theauthorization to use force that they signed. And how Hans Blix didn'treally declare that the inspections were working, only that they wouldkeep Hussein from doing too much. And how Hussein violated everyresolution the UN threw at him. And how the Democrats connived the USinto thinking the war was all about Big Oil and Haliburton withoutbatting an eye at the corruption surrounding Total Fina Elf, Yukos, andthe Oil for Food program. And that the only shred of illegalitysurrounding the war is the lack of sanction by the very institution, theUN, that sat by idly and allowed a brutal thug to buy their morality.

This loss will be compared to Vietnam, as you wish, but the loss willnot be mine. It will be yours. It will be Speaker Pelosi's. It will bethe Democrats' loss, forever and ever. In fact, since the Democrats'conceded defeat in both Iraq and Vietnam when we were winningmilitarily, the only Vietnam parallel you will likely achieve is how theDemocrats so readily accept defeat.

We are winning this war. Just look at the signs. The enemy cannot safelywear uniforms, they cannot confront us directly, and instead they hideamongst and target unarmed civilians. When they succeed in blowing up anunsuspecting marketplace, they can count on you to dutifully deliver thebig sound bite about how the civilian body count is direct evidence thatthe war is lost. Then you tell the same enemy that all they need to dois kill more civilians and wait, kill more civilians and wait, kill morecivilians and wait. They were waiting for 2009 but, fortunately forthem, "elections have consequences."

This is not the 1960's or '70's. This is the information age and, sir,there is simply too much information about this war that contradictsyour statements and actions. History will not be kind to you.

--1SG Steven G. Cotton

TSgt Brian S.:

Sir, while I am not one of your constituents, I AM in the military and I feel it is my duty let you know that your comment today about the war being "lost" is despicable. And also as a military MAN, I do not appreciate you and your cohorts referring to us as "children".

I am 36 years old sir and I am offended with that reference. It misrepresents the MEN and WOMEN in uniform. I know you do it to conjure up images of actual children in people's heads to gain sympathy, but it is insulting. We were not drafted, we were not coerced into service. We chose to defend this country with our lives if necessary. Don't you DARE disrespect those who protect your freedom to stand in that room and debate the names of buildings! If you pull the troops out before the job is done, you will have a military that is demoralized to a low point not seen since Vietnam and you will simply embolden those who seek to destroy us. You have not been there, you do not know how they think. They truly believe they are doing Allah's work and that all non-muslims should either be killed or used as slaves. There is no middle ground for them.

Of course I know that the reality is, you and the other Dems have your eyes on only one thing, the White House. You all WANT the war to be lost so badly you can taste it. Its what you believe will guarantee a victory in '08. You guys are not the least bit slick about it. So why don't you just quit pretending you care about the troops or national security. Just tell the people you want to cut and run and hide out here at home and hope the bad men won't come back to hurt us again. And while you're at it, have Ms. Pelosi go have a nice chat with Iran and promise them anything they want if they will just not be mean to us. Give him some good nuke factory blueprints and all the coordinates he needs in Israel? You and your ilk are disgraceful sir and it is my sincere hope that you are not reelected to another term.

Reader George sends a photoshop of the White Flag Dems: (see here: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007345.htm)

Reader Dennis:

In regards to Mr. Reid's comment:

I am currently serving in my 25th year, did one tour in Iraq, and would willingly go back. I'm at a loss for words. I just wish that he was also.

Reader Mark, serving in Bagram, Afghanistan, sends this essay:

I, Soldier

By Staff Sergeant Mark J. Anderson

I am an American Soldier. I defend the constitution of the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic. I can be called upon to be many things in that regard: a humanitarian, a policeman, a diplomat, and at times; a killer. Yet there are many things that I am not. I am not an oppressor or an occupier. I am not an infidel, a fascist, or a witless, ignorant pawn. I am not caught up in an imperialist government’s grab for resources.

I do know how I am viewed by many. I know that I am looked upon with scorn and derision, even among many within my own country. I know that I am considered a mercenary in one hemisphere and a crusader in the next. I know that my death would be cause for prayers of thanks on the lips of some of the most intolerant murderers imaginable. I know I am viewed as an unnecessary, barbaric, and an outmoded relic of an unenlightened past. I know my mistakes will be amplified and my successes will be discounted, written off, or ignored. I know that “defending freedom” is a term met with derision, scoffs and cynicism. I know many people deem it naïve and perhaps impossible to help build foundations of freedom in places where there were none. I know my presence in foreign lands has embarrassed many, offended sensibilities, and affronted fashionable ideologies. Yet it remains that I cannot stand idly by to see attacks on the very core of my country from within, while dangerous threats to this country lurk from without. I write this not as an attack on farther and farther left leaning adherents- adherents who continue to view the United States with unveiled contempt- but the mistaken ideologies that have cynicized (ok, its not a real word) their worldview and offered them nothing substantial in return. I must not attack them, but I must never forget that I am a defender, and I am altogether right in providing every defense of the country I love. There are times when a soldier must be called upon to provide defense with a pen rather than a rifle, this is one of those times.

I know that continually harping on the failures of my country cannot shake the faith I have in its inherent goodness. I know that you cannot demonize my Government without in effect demonizing the American people who have established and maintained a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I know that the only way to attack this country from within is not to deny its goodness, but to veil the very recognition of any goodness. I know that freedom, no matter how strong the media campaign to the contrary may seem, does not equate to constant impulse fulfillment. Freedom equates with responsibility, duty, and love for your family and neighbors. I know I love my country because I love my family, my friends and my home. As the Constitution protects these things, so too must I protect the Constitution. American Patriotism is altogether good and true. Label it not the last refuge of the scoundrel, because the patriots I have known have only sought refuge in honor. It is cynicism, rather, that is the last refuge of the offensive minded who have found nothing to defend.

I know that reality is never the friend of the ideologue. The ideologue always believes that a perfect world would just be if it weren’t for x. Today, x equals The United States, its leaders and its Military. The problem is, the ideologue never has and never will provide a blue print for what this Perfect world-the world their Scapegoat is smothering-would look like, feel like, or how it would come to be when the Scapegoat is gone. Their only answer: the scapegoat must be removed. I believe that the paths that begin at the ideologue’s pulpit, ultimately end in fields of fire. I know there is no word ending in the letters i-s-m which has dreamt come near to defining a perfect world. There has never been an ideological lens through which an ideal world could be seen.

I know that military personnel and public servants are scapegoats because The U.S. Military is powerful, successful, and beloved by less than cosmopolitan people who reside outside the halls of academia or the offices of opinion makers. I know that this scares some. I know that many believe that an institution cannot be rich, powerful and righteous at the same time. I know that it would be forced upon me to believe that there is no transcendent right or wrong, therefore no righteousness: that all that remains is merely a political correctness or incorrectness.

Many would have me believe that the Military is strong and the military is successful because the American government is greedy and the American “system” is exploitative. I reject that entirely. The Military is strong and the military is successful because the American people are strong and the American people are successful. We are The United States of America because we have lived testimony to the fact that power must forever be secondary and subordinate to conscience. Although it is in our nature to fail in this regard repeatedly; we continue to pick ourselves back up. Americans are fighters: we have fought tyrants beyond our shores yes, but we have also fought the tyrants within our nature. We have fought, and continue to fight those tendencies within us all to value secondary things over the primacy of human dignity. Many would have me believe that Racism is the foundational problem facing this world. But we are too arrogant, wrapped up in our sense of progress to reflect on wisdom past. We have closed our ears to the words of our long dead teachers who would have perhaps decried the evil of racism, yes but more importantly would have recognized racism as merely a symptom of the greater disease of human pride.

Today we fight enemies beyond our shores that worship political power and mistake its glamour as a birthright and gift from Allah, but I cannot ignore the almost-enemies at home that demand “social justice” and define it as the dismantling of traditional foundations that the millions of Military members past and present have fought to uphold. Do not label those you dislike as racists, and continuously shift the definition of racism to cover everything you dislike about them.

Social Justice is a straw man concept; society cannot be “just” if its individuals choose not to be. I scoff at the words “social justice”. For social is an empty, hollow, valueless word. I can not comfort a society. I can not shake a society’s hand. I can not mourn at a society’s funeral, and I cannot stand vigilant between society and a suicide bomber. No, it is individuals who are beautiful, individuals who are destitute, individuals who are greedy, and it is individuals who will be judged as being just or unjust. There are such things as judgments and there is such thing as the judge. Justice is the right state of relationship between two or more souls as judged by something independent of those individuals. Justice is not something as dimensionless as “social”; it is not some equal distribution of abstract commodities among a “society.” Society is merely a disposable word used by individuals with just enough courage to point the finger of blame, but not enough to point the finger at their selves.

And so I must ask the Cynics and the ideologues: How do you perfect a society by doing nothing but criticizing it? How do you build perfection into a society if you don’t know what a perfect design would be? Do you think that “bad” is what you attacked yesterday, and “good” is whatever is left tomorrow? So if you must, label me a Rightwing Christian, a Neo-Con, or a Warmonger but please I only ask of you to ponder, if only for a moment, my questions. And I ask you to recognize me for what I am to your ideology: I am your scapegoat, but I will not be a quiet one.

I am an American soldier, and I have one last thing to say in defense of the “Anti-War” mindset. It is contradictory to say you support the troops, but de-construct the mission. Troops at war live the mission, and at times they die for the mission. When you deconstruct, undermine, underwrite, and sharp shoot our purpose, you deconstruct, undermine, underwrite, and sharp shoot us. We testify to the hope that by protecting young constitutional democracies abroad, we can stand worthy before our forebears who provided the same for us. I see you as utterly and completely a demoralizing agent, if you agree that enough carnage, enough explosives set among innocents, enough kidnapping and torture of young sons from their homes offsets the last full devotion of thousands of American men and women; those who died trying to defend an honorable and true idea: a free and represented Iraq and Afghanistan.

When unchecked violence against the innocent produces a terrorist’s objective there, what happens when those terrorists and more realize that same violence can accomplish their desires here? Please remember that when you can kiss your family, leave your home and fear not being targeted by a suicide bomber, so that you may protest the parting from our homes and our families so that we may put as great a distance as possible between that Bomber and you.

Link to Michelle Malkin's column here: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007345.htm

Sphere: Related Content