Wednesday, August 08, 2007

What is treason?

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts for the next two posts. I intended to write about the following post soon. With the column that was printed in the Peoria Journal Star on August 7, 2007, today’s post seems the appropriate time to do so. I do plan to return to the Creationism posts after these two.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

The following is a column by Cal Thomas that was printed in the Peoria Journal Star on 8/7/07, page A4. It is entitled “Can Democrats accept victory?” The column:

“Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no ‘Plan B,’ which would be success.

Like the character Billy Bigelow in the musical “Carousel,” who is dumbstruck when he realizes he has not thought about the possibility that his pregnant wife might actually deliver a girl, instead of the son he wants, Democrats appear unable to conceive of victory, or at least stability in Iraq.

So cynical have our politics become that a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are ‘not willing to concede there are positive things to point to’ in Iraq. (There are none so blind as those who will not see.—my addition) And House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said that a favorable report from Gen. David Petraeus could lead 47 ‘blue dog’ Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass withdrawal legislation.

Is that what the Iraq war has become? Instead of viewing it as a generational war that will determine the future of civilization (because, if we lose, Iraq will become a launching pad for terrorist acts around the world and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would surely die), is it now just another tool in the Democrat’s quest for the White House?

Where are the statesmen who put their country and its interests before personal and political interests? Was Harry Truman right when he observed, ‘A statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years’? Aren’t we Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats?

Much of Washington is buzzing over a recent New York Times column by two scholars from the Brookings Institution, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. In addition to their association with a left-of-center think tank, the two have credibility because they have been harsh critics of the way President Bush has directed the war.

Their column, “A War We Just Might Win,” expresses something we haven’t heard in several years: optimism. ‘We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms,’ they write. This surprised them and they saw ‘the potential to produce not necessarily ‘victory,’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.’

Testifying last week before the House Armed Services Committee, U.S. Army General John M. Keane said Gen. Petraeus’ new offensive has turned the tide against al-Qaida and insurgents alike. ‘We are on the offensive and have the momentum,’ said Gen. Keane, citing improved security throughout Baghdad, reduced sectarian violence, and al-Qaida losing ground in Sunni areas.

This is bad news for Democrats, so invested are they in defeat. (Isn’t that a sickening concept? Do the libertine Democrats really desire defeat for perceived political gain?—my addition) What would they do, what could they do, should pacification, if not unification, set in? It would not be beyond them to ignore the positives and focus only on the negatives. Will the mainstream media support them in such a strategy? (Some would to the bitter end. Do they too want our defeat?—my addition) Some might, but the alternative media, including talk radio, cable TV and the Internet, won’t let them get away with it. Democrats may be reduced to asking if the public is going to believe them or their lying eyes.
On “NBC Nightly News,” anchor Brian Williams recently ignored the column by O’Hanlon and Pollack and instead focused on a draft U.S. report, saying ‘there are disturbing new details about corruption at the very top of the Iraqi government.’ ABC’s Terry McCarthy apparently didn’t receive, or ignored, the Democratic talking points when he said on “World News Tonight” that the O’Hanlon-Pollack column ‘tracks fairly closely with what we’re seeing.’ David Martin on “CBS Evening News” reported that ‘with one day left in the month, American casualties in July are the lowest since the troop surge began in February.’

NBC notwithstanding, these somewhat upbeat assessments on CBS and ABC must be unsettling to a lot of Democrats. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, who flipped on her favorite baseball team when it became politically expedient to do so, will have a tough time selling the line, ‘I believed in victory from the beginning.’”

Wouldn’t it be patriotic if libertine Democrats actually wanted the United States to be successful in Iraq? During war, the battle cry should be “United we stand; divided we fall.” Is that the attitude and mind set of the libertine Democrats in relation to our war in Iraq?

In the United States Constitution in Article III, Section 3 TREASON is defined. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Is it giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Al-Qaida and other terrorists) to publicly declare “The war is lost” in the middle of the war when the war has NOT been lost by any reasonable evaluation?

We have never been losing the war militarily. We have been losing the information war within the United States for several years. Propaganda is being produced not by our enemies but by our own citizens including libertine Democrats declaring “The war is lost!” Is it time for the Republican Party in general to get out of their rabbit holes and start declaring the vital information of the necessity of defeating the enemy in Iraq instead of retreating? Is it time for an information offensive against the propaganda of retreat and defeat?

I have said before that a major tenet in fighting terrorism is to never allow terrorists to win. Terrorists must realize that we will not retreat and we will not be defeated. To win, this country must develop and maintain a will to win. War is not normally easy and it is expensive. The alternative is much more expensive.

We recognized that war was expensive but must be won in World War II. We must demonstrate the same dogged determination in our war against terror. We must prove to Al-Qaida and all other terrorists that their costs will be much greater than our costs. That our will to win is greater than their will to win. That our patience to endure is greater than their patience to endure.

By the very nature of terrorism, if they realize that we are more determined than they are, the terrorists will melt away and turn their attention to easier and softer targets. That does not mean that the war is over or that we can relax. It does mean that they will not strike again until they believe they have an advantage. Each time they do, we must make them pay a greater price than we did. That is the proven method to limit terrorism. Any victory encourages their actions. Every defeat discourages their actions. Terrorists go for the soft underbelly not the courageous defender. Every terrorist act is an act to encourage their followers by demonstrating a victory even on a small scale. We can not allow them victories particularly a major victory as a retreat in Iraq would be. It is insanity!

I posted the following in February of this year. I repeat it because it is still relevant.

Thursday, February 16, 2007 Victory?

The following political commentary was in the Morton TimesNews on February 15, 2007, page A4. (It was “Distributed by DBR Media, Inc.” and gave the following website: It has four panels. The caricature in each panel appears to be that of Senator Edward Kennedy. If that was the intent, it seems appropriate.

The first panel has the individual declaring “Troop surge?! We need to leave Iraq immediately!” The second panel has a reporter asking “… And that will bring about an American victory?” The third panel has the individual not responding. The sentence bubble used in such drawings has only this—“ … ”. The fourth panel has the individual asking “ … Victory?”

What insight. The problem, of course, is that the mass media would not ask and has not asked “And that will bring about an American victory?” because the mass media does not seem to want an American victory. Unfortunately, neither do the libertine Democrats who are demanding an immediate withdrawal.

Many in the public as presented by the mass media (Who knows how many are actually involved—the mass media distorts the truth continually.), the mass media in general, and libertine Democrats do not have the will to fight against terrorists even though terrorists have continually attacked the United States and her interests including the 9/11 massacre of innocent men and women.

They don’t even seem to understand that we are at war. A war not of our choosing. However, that does not mean that we are not at war. No one can end a war by simply declaring that they are not going to participate because they don’t like the war. That simply emboldens the enemy. Yes, we have an enemy. It would be beneficial if we realized that simple fact.

They also don’t seem to recognize this fact. By keeping the enemy occupied in Iraq, miles from the U.S., the enemy has not been able to launch another attack on American soil. Do they actually believe that the enemy is finished attacking us and our interests? Do they actually believe that by declaring an end to the Iraq Conflict they can also declare an end to the war? Can they give just one historical example of one side declaring they will not fight and the other side also agreeing to the same when they have not yet been defeated? Do they have their heads buried in the sand like an ostrich? Are they an ostrich?

They are pathetic. They support the continual murder of unborn babies but are not willing to fight terrorists who have declared war on us and attacked our very shores. It is fortunate that they were not influencing policy during World War II. We would all be speaking German today (or Japanese).

Thank GOD for the courage and steadfastness of President Bush! War should not be waged by public opinion poll. If it were, we would have the United States of America and The Confederate States of America today. George Bush is more of a modern day Lincoln that any libertine Democrat from Illinois, contrary to what the mass media would have us believe!!!

I am also repeating a paragraph from today’s post.

In the United States Constitution in Article III, Section 3 TREASON is defined. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Is it giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Al-Qaida and other terrorists) to publicly declare “The war is lost” in the middle of the war when the war has NOT been lost by any reasonable evaluation?


Post a Comment

<< Home