October 5, 2007

Patriotism Is More Than Just A Refuge For Scoundrels

Over the last two days, the question of patriotism has been debated over the blogosphere. It started with Barack Obama's tortured explanation of why he stopped wearing a lapel pin representing the American flag. He told reporters that he took it off because unnamed others had used it to cover unpatriotic behavior and that the flag had become a "substitute for true patriotism," an explanation that annoyed many more people than did the absence of the lapel pin itself.

Today on Heading Right Radio, we debated another dimension of the same question. One of our callers, clearly frustrated with some Democratic Congressmen and specifically Robert Byrd, called them "traitors". Duane Patterson and I argued that being wrong does not make someone a traitor or unpatriotic. It goes to intent, as both of us argued. If one honestly believes in a set of policies, even if wrong, it does not make them unpatriotic -- and one does not commit treason by dissenting from the current administration, regardless of party. Unless they intend harm to come to America, they're not traitors, and unless they wish us to fail, they're not unpatriotic.

Earlier this evening, I read a post by David Freddoso at The Corner that captured the difference. A reader asserted that some dissent causes the death of American soldiers, and used the Tet Offensive as an example. Freddoso replied:

Does a dissenter cause the death of American soldiers by voicing an opinion? It was surely unpatriotic for some to collude with the communist enemy during the Vietnam War, and allege phony atrocities under oath (ahem, thinking of of a former presidential candidate here). That's called "spreading enemy propaganda."

But what about ordinary people of good faith, who love their country, simply expressing an opinion that a particular war is not worth the loss of life? I thought that the soldiers were fighting precisely for our freedom to express that opinion.

Rather than dissenters, I would think it's the insurgents who are killing the soldiers. But if you really want to blame someone besides them, why trace it to dissenters? What about the people who support the war? Soldiers wouldn't die in wars if they never started. But no, that's also silly, of course — war supporters who act in good faith aren't causing deaths either.

Neville Chamberlain was not unpatriotic towards the United Kingdom. He loved his country. He just saw appeasement as the best policy towards Hitler regarding British interests. He was tragically wrong, as was Daladier, who had much less enthusiasm for appeasement but went along with the British. Neither were traitors, but the appeasement strategies they pushed were the direct cause of tens of millions of unnecessary deaths.

Yesterday, I interviewed David Andelman of Forbes.com about his book on the Versailles treaty, A Shattered Peace. The people involved in that disastrous treaty were not unpatriotic nor traitorous, but they were grasping, shallow, and shortsighted beyond belief. They turned out to be very dangerous men who have an indirect responsibility not just for World War II but also most of the rest of the 20th century's conflicts, including our present war on terror. All of them loved their countries -- so much so that they couldn't see past the appetites and bruised egos of their nations.

Patriotic doesn't mean correct, nor does it mean incorrect. Patriots have defended this country in its every crisis. Just because Barack Obama disagrees with people or think them foolish doesn't mean that they have committed unpatriotic acts, which is why he began to back away from his foolish statement afterwards; he undoubtedly did not want to have to start naming names, because he had none. Just because Robert Byrd stood up on the Senate floor to accuse his colleagues of provoking Iran -- a day before they celebrated a national holiday of genocidal impulses by chanting "Death to America" at government-sponsored rallies -- he did not commit a traitorous or unpatriotic act. He's dead wrong about the resolution on the Al-Quds force, and he's a Hall of Fame porker, but I have no doubt that Robert Byrd loves his country and doesn't want harm to come to it.

We should hold the hyperbole, and assume the best motives whenever possible. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize actions and speeches when wrong, or that we should do so with insufficient vigor. It does mean that we should hold the most dire allegations for those who deserve it. Adam Gadahn is a traitor. Robert Byrd and Barack Obama are fools. The two are not synonymous. If we don't recognize that patriotism means love of country regardless of wisdom on policy, then we really will have reduced it to only the last refuge of scoundrels.

UPDATE: And, as Dave in PA reminds us in the comments, one has to commit a treasonous act in accordance with the Constitution to meet the legal requirement of being a traitor -- intent plus an act. Again, Adam Gadahn is a traitor in all senses of the word.

UPDATE II: Daladier, not Clemenceau, as Mike reminds me in the comments. Should have double-checked my copy of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Patriotism Is More Than Just A Refuge For Scoundrels:

» The Birth Of The Modern, Revisited from Ed Driscoll.com
"Those eight months in Paris, back in 1919, that's when our world began to go off the rails."--about 25 minutes into Thursday's edition of Ed Morrissey's Heading Right show on Blog Talk Radio, David Andelman of Forbes makes the same... [Read More]

» 'True Patriotism' Re-Defined from Politix

Open mouth. Insert foot. Repeat. I think that's become Barak Obama's unofficial campaign slogan. If it's not, it should be.

While on the campaign trail in Iowa, Obama was asked why he stopped...

[Read More]

Comments (82)

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 5, 2007 8:24 PM

Regardless, I still wear my flag lapel pin.

Posted by Charlie | October 5, 2007 8:28 PM

Your guidelines here are spot on. The admonition that you may oppose the war but must support the troops has never made any sense to me except in the "any stick will do to beat a dog" sense.

Still, we agree there is a line that can be crossed and the vile one who cross it, like John Kerry and Jack Murtha, are worth a bucket of spit, even if they did serve. Maybe especially because they did serve.

Posted by jpm100 [TypeKey Profile Page] | October 5, 2007 8:30 PM

What if someone doesn't care if its right or wrong, correct or incorrect, but are simply playing to the audience.

Posted by Eric | October 5, 2007 8:31 PM

Hmmmm. Where does Sulzberger's blowing of an ongoing CIA operation fall? That's a long way past dissent.

Posted by Justrand | October 5, 2007 8:37 PM

I'll limit my comments to Kerry.

He WAS and IS either a:
- traitor to this country
- a complete moron, incapable of discerning even the simplest truth

If I give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, then he is a complete moron...unfit to serve in the U.S. Senate. Otherwise...

Kerry defamed our ENTIRE military in his famous "Winter Soldier" testimony. A complete fabrication (he later admitted) that neverthless catipulted this pile of excrement to public office.

His depiction of our current military as terrorists does nothing to show he has developed a brain!!

Can I EVER forgive Kerry for his "Winter Soldier" testimony? Nope. I was in Marine Corps boot camp when he gave it. Upon graduation from boot camp we were "advised" to "not wear our uniforms in public" due to the furor HIS statements had caused.

We did anyway.

Posted by Tregonsee | October 5, 2007 8:39 PM

In the legal, medical, aviation, and many other professions, there is the basic concept that beyond a certain point incompetence, especially when due to willfulness rather than inability, is actually criminal behavior, and is treated as such. In the area of this article, we have seen, increasingly, cases of politicians and people who are involved in the political sphere who due to partisanship, ignorance, or just plain woolly headed thinking, act in a way which is functionally indistinguishable from genuine treason. We need a word equivalent to malpractice in law or medicine. Perhaps malcitizenship. Not that I am suggesting it should be illegal, but it would at least put a stop people acting offended and accusing you of questioning their patriotism.

Posted by capitano | October 5, 2007 8:41 PM


How would you characterize the 20% of Democrats who say the world would be better off if the U.S. loses the Iraq war?

In particular, how would you characterize those in the media and in Congress who act on that belief by undermining the troops, either by recklessly or knowingly making false statements (as opposed to mere incorrect statements) that are used by terrorist enemies to incite violence and recruit more jihadis in the middle East?

Posted by Teresa | October 5, 2007 8:47 PM

I was also struck by Fredosso's comments Captain and thought they were wise. The partisanship that we see on the net seems designed to stir up the most vile, rankest forms of insult towards people who hold a different view point.

I think a lot of what people say in the comment section of this board is dead wrong, but I don't doubt for a minute that these people care about this country. What is the old saying, "I hate what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Maybe it is too late to go back, but I hope not.

Posted by Dave in PA | October 5, 2007 8:52 PM

Bravo, Captain Ed! Hear, hear!

However, I'd like to comment on the subject of treason. You wrote, "...one does not commit treason by dissenting from the current administration, regardless of party. Unless they intend harm to come to America, they're not traitors".

In writing the US Constitution, the Founding Fathers were extremely explicit in defining treason. They had seen for centuries, various kings of England had misused the charge of treason in order to crush political dissent.

Many Englishmen paid with their lives for merely being politically opposed to a policy of the King. They committed no act to harm the English state and were otherwise patriotic men. A perfect example is Sir Thomas More, former Lord Chancellor and the pre-eminent English legal scholar of his time. More was convicted of treason and beheaded at the Tower of London, merely for opposing-on entirely legal grounds-King Henry VIII's serial divorces and remarriages.

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution defines 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.,/i>"

As we can see, besides having the criminal intent, a traitor must have committed an act that fits within the Constitution's explicit definition. Intent PLUS act!

As you then noted and cited perfect examples of fool being unpatriotic, on account of their damaging ignorance and knavery.

Posted by Carol Herman | October 5, 2007 9:00 PM

Since I'm not voting for Barak Obama, I could care less about what he says. Though when I hear the stuff that sounds "unpatriotic," I think that he's appeallinhg to OJ voters. I have yet to discover any rationality that makes them buy the crap they accept. But, it's not my problem.

Again, what is now manifestly obvious, is that political leadership is lacking in congress.

Did I once "confuse" leadership with the crap that got pulled on Nixon? Of course, I did.

But that only means I didn't see it.

Yeah, I knew affirmative action was bad.

And, when, late in life, I attended college, I couldn't believe how big the waste of time, was. Especially when I, who love to read, couldn't find anything worth persuing ... other than "answering the questions." At the end of which I was handed a degree. With honors. Thankyouverymuch.

Now, I'm supposed to be concerned that the Bonkeys have no candidates to run that look attractive? Why should I care?

I grew up thinking Adlai Stevenson was a brilliant candidate. So, early in life, watching my parents choose losers; I discovered I could do the same.

I no longer take this to heart.

And, I also worry about Guiliani's health. I think he'd be a major change in the "selection department," if he gets to "pass go." And, becomes the republican nominee.

What we need is someone who can lead a giant sized, complex organization. Guiliani's been effective, before. And, he can bring something to the table, that I think has gone missing. Where PEOPLE, together, work with "the leadership" that forms in congress.

Does that mean I know how to kick Larry Craig out, now? You're kidding me. But what if he "doesn't hurt" others; except those who are incompetent at leadership? How bad is that?

Oh. And, what if we don't succeed in 2008, at fixing what's broken? People aren't gonna go away, ya know. We'll all still be around. And, it's possible that a lot of people share many of the goals the MAINSTREAM wants. But primaries, in the past, denied the MAINSTREAM "front runners."

I'd like to see, ahead, more people participating, too.

That's another reason stuff could change, ya know?

Today's politicians? What if I compared them to typewriters? IBM thought they'd still be selling those things! They are not.

I'd bet there are fads where tastes change.

And, the idea that the fringe is gonna be in control, well I really doubt that very much.

Plus, ahead. When we're looking at the decades to come? What will America be doing that let's us all share, together? And, what's gonna get tossed out, because it never really worked?

How should I know? It's a question without an answer. Because guessing future events is very, very complex.

Oh. And, the businesses that killed themselves trying to "kill" Bush? Run by a bunch of yahoo's.

Franklin Foer plays the same game as Larry Craig. Gets his paychecks every week; and could care less.

Does that mean we'll get a congressional spectacle? Ya know what? I've read TEA ROOM TRADE. Americans aren't gonna want to listen to the nitty gritty.

The best outcome for Idaho? Somebody connects with the voters. Bypassing Craig. And, without even having to talk about toilets. One handshake at a time.

As to Obama? Seems lots of Blacks have not caught up to Clarence Thomas. His message? Was on target. It's foolish to vote genitalia; or skin color. Or just because somebody attends your church. Much better to seize opportunity, and know it's yours. And, unless you're very, very short. And, you want to appear very, very tall, you don't have to wear high heels to do it.

But be my guest. It's a free country.

As to Obama, he's not gonna get as far as he'd like to go; because the Clinton's are CROOKS.

Posted by George | October 5, 2007 9:00 PM

I would define American patriotism as a belief in and adherence to the principles upon which our country was founded: i.e. A country founded on the principles of individual liberty and rights and a limited government restricted to "securing" our rights.

Posted by Peyton | October 5, 2007 9:37 PM

Great article, Cap'n! I've researched this topic some, myself. Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities are defined very clearly in United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115:


I researched this area as I filed criminal complaints with the DC office of the FBI and the Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate. Nothing happened as there is no true accountability of our elite leadership. However, I am absolutely confident that Harry Reid is guilty of several sections (quotes run long) of this chapter, both through intent and acts. His personal power will be enhanced if the United States' effort in Iraq fails, and he has actively sought to bring this about. His is not a principled argument, nor is it dissent. His is a desire to see the U.S. defeated, so that he may reap the rewards.

"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..."

Posted by Mike | October 5, 2007 9:44 PM

You wrote that Clemenceau went along with Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. I think you meant Daladier, Clemenceau was the French leader during the latter part of the First World War.

Posted by Get to the Truth | October 5, 2007 9:46 PM

The point is that Barack feels that he should not ware the flag of he United States of America.

How can being unwilling to wear the flag of the USA be called patriotic.
Barack could have said all of those thing and worn a flag pin. He felt that that was not appropriate to say/feel what he does and to ware the flag.

I agree. He should not ware the flag when he is pushing policies that will lead to our defeat.

Obama is admitting his un-patriotism by stating that he will not ware the flag.

Captain I really disagree with you. The argument you present in “Patriotism Is More Than Just A Refuge For Scoundrels” would be appropriate if Barack pushed for our surrenderer while wearing a flag pin.

But Barack Obama is stating that he will not ware a flag pin and there is no argument that can be made that not wearing the flag is patriotic.

Posted by Mike in Oregon | October 5, 2007 10:04 PM

So, 20% of Democrats want to see the USA lose the Iraq war. Are they traitors?

Posted by NahnCee | October 5, 2007 10:24 PM

intent plus an act.

Agree with the poster above who notes that the editor of the NY Times seems to fit these criteria, both in leaking national secrets and in printing a continual anti-American pack of lies for four years or more now.

Dan Rather: the intent was there to affect a Presidential election, and he certainly committed the act.

Jimmy Carter: I'm not sure what Mr. Carter's actual intent is, but I am sure that since he's on the Saudi payroll, he is no longer working for the good of America ... if he ever was. And he's done multiple acts to back up that intent.

I think the good Captain in attempting to chastise us for hurling "traitor" at people we disagree with has merely succeeded in making it perfectly clear just exactly which Americans *do* have an anti-American intent, and then act upon it.

Nancy Pelosi, for example -- going to Syria and meeting with Baby Assad. What could the possible intent be behind that act?

Posted by jfw1961 | October 5, 2007 10:30 PM

If "patriotism means love of country..." then I would argue that liberals who openly despise the fundamentals upon which this nation was built are indeed unpatriotic.

There's nothing patriotic about a Charlatan whistle-stopper who, by promising $5000 savings bonds, is forsaking the good of the nation in the hope of furthering their political career.

Furthermore, I have no qualms about labeling unpatriotic those representatives who unabashedly steal gaveled votes in the Senate and who undermine House protocol by introducing clay pigeons on behalf of the majority party.

Posted by John S. | October 5, 2007 10:43 PM

So, you legal scholars out there... what are the chances that, should we manage to capture Adam Gadahn, he will be sentenced to "hang by the neck until dead"? If anyone deserves hanging in this day and age, surely he does.

Posted by Thomas Jackson | October 5, 2007 10:53 PM

Do those who truly believe war and violence are not the answer guilty of being unpatriotic? As you stated unless it is their intent to harm the nation it is not. But isn't it? As Orwell stated that pacifists are the allies of aggressors since they will not defend their nation and rely on others to protect their rights while advancing the goals of the enemy.

We know Gen. Giap said that the politboro in Hanoi was convinced the war was lost but the antic of the antiwar demonstrators encouraged them to continue their aggression and ultimately control not only the South but Laos and Cambodia as well. Wearing a flag pin doesn't define patriotism and wearing one doesn't make Obama a patriotic and not wearing it doesn't make him unpatriotic. But weigh the evidence and I see nothing that indicates he loves the country or supports our troops. I look at the actions of Kerry, Murtha, Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama and I see many things that do not bode well and are not indicative of a deeply felt respect for the soldiers or their sacrifices. If they are patriots I keep wondering why have the members of the armed services been so badly treated and why do I picture these people as burning the flag rather than saluting it?

Posted by oldirishpig | October 5, 2007 11:16 PM

A sidenote on Neville Chamberlain: Churchill regarded Stanley Baldwin as the real villain. He spent years deliberately lying about the buildup of Nazi forces and claiming the UK was keeping in step. He was furious that RAF officers were leaking government reports to Churchill. By the time Chamberlain got into office, the deficiencies were so great that he really had no choice but to attempt to appease Hitler, while finally beginning to re-arm. Remember, Churchill kept Chamberlain on as a member of his war-time cabinet, and was reported to have replied to a request for birthday greetings to a retired Baldwin by saying, "While I wish him no harm, it would have been better for this country if he had never been born."

Posted by Soylent Red | October 5, 2007 11:27 PM

The problem, as I see it, is that a certain political viewpoint in this country benefits from the failure of the current policies of the country. Thus you have certain Democrats who may or may not truly love their country, voicing opinions that by all appearances are treasonous by traditional standards. However...

The intent, I believe, is to for the benefit of the country. Just not the country we are living in today.

Rather, some feel it better that the U.S. be "taught a lesson" so that we will be more in line with a certain political viewpoint, or align ourselves with a certain variety of policy. To paraphrase "The Big Lebowski"- they're not wrong, they're just assholes.

In short, it's hard to define. But like porn, most people know it when they see it.

Posted by Roberto Scrofani | October 5, 2007 11:44 PM

Captain, a very powerful post.

I'd like add to your comments by answering some of the comments to your post using "George" who posted the following:

I would define American patriotism as a belief in and adherence to the principles upon which our country was founded: i.e. A country founded on the principles of individual liberty and rights and a limited government restricted to "securing" our rights.

With all due respect, this is an incomplete and limited definition of Patriotism. The truth of the matter is that patriotism has always been seen as a relative truth, not an absolute. The reason I say that because what it means to be a patriot has changed as frequently as we change presidents.

In the 1750's patriots hated the French and some Indians while they loved the Motherland (England). Only 20 years later patriots were defined as those who hated England and embraced the French. In the first part of the 19th century a patriot loved all Americans, except Catholics, the Irish, and of course, the old standbys, the Jews. By the 1850's if you didn't want to kill your southern brother, you were thrown out of the Senate (among other things.) By the end of the 19th century the group to hate had changed to the Spanish. You can immagine what an "American" of Mexican descent felt in the southwest, living in those states that until 1848 had belonged to Mexico. The waves of newly transplanted english speakers in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, California...you can imagine how they eyed these, "trespassers" from South of the border. It was patriotic to beat the drums of war against Spain. We eventually started another war on the strength of a yellow tattered lie of a rag spouting the headline, "Remember the Maine". During world war one, the Germans began to change their last names. You see, "Huns" were eyed with suspicion and their patriotism was questioned. In the second world war, we carted off the California Japanese. They couldn't be patriots, those slanty eyed gooks (as we would later lovingly come to call those hated Vietnamese) A gook is a gook is a gook. Who can tell a Chinaman from a Jap anyway...right?
As you can see, since patriotism is defined by the majority, at any given time, its definition is subject to change.

Am I a patriot? You tell me. I'm in that mushy middle so hated by those so cocksure of their convictions that the world is only made of black and white. People who are unable or unwilling, or simply too stupid to quiet their ignorance and hatred and suffer through the subtleties of complexity. They raise their volumes and so heighten the contrast of their vision that the subtle shades of an argument, of our existence, of general reality disappear until the entire world is a vision of complete brightness or utter blackness, of moral, political, social, absolutism. The us v. them, the good v. bad,
You gotta love this country, take it or leave it. There is no middle. The state is either red or blue. Purple, that's a color their retinas willfully refuse to capture.

Patriotism? I define it as love of country. And if you love this country you love its people, 300 million full of different religions, sects, colors beliefs, opinions etc. Sure we're not always right, don't always do the right thing, don't always follow the golden rule, but very very very few of us Americans would actually fall under the rubric of unpatriotic. The idiocy of hatred, of some people's version of purity and patriotism...the KKK was once seen as standing up for defending and protecting, American ideals, the perfect patriotic organization...

According to the census, there's over 200 million adults and almost 40 percent of them consider themselves democrats. That's 80 million. I'm so sick and tired of having many of those on the right speak ill of so many Americans. Go to the Free Republic sites, Fox News, and even some people who respond on this site and you can see what I mean.

You all are real loud right now, have been for quite some time; the 33 percent of you who still love this president and his party so much that you would follow it and him into the mouth of hell. The rest of us feel that's exactly where we're headed. The rest, the silent majority...we are pretty sick and tired of him, his party and the rest of you. I am part of that silent majority, the other 66 percent, and although we rarely kick up a fuss, come 2008 our silence will be heard. We will redefine what patriotism means. We will redefine who are and who are not patriots. And what was once a sea of red amid two blue bookends will take on a purple hue, the color of a new, more subtle, more nuanced patriotism.

I await that day with hope, and a prayer.

Posted by NahnCee | October 6, 2007 12:19 AM

Roberto Scrofulous posts several paragraphs of apologia for his fellow progressives, but you can find he real gist of his feelings and his argument here:

the 33 percent of you who still love this president and his party so much ...

Anyone else recognize Bush Derangement Syndrome in full bloom? Forget the Constitution, forget 9/11, forget terrorists (who, after all, have "root causes" and are merely freedom fighters) -- we are all stupid neocons and we would do well to listen to the lectures of our intellectual elites as they drum home their base message of, "IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!"

Mr. Scrofulous, I'd rather be dead than to be like you or to bow down to your Marxist/Socialist ideas. And if you keep pushing those ideas in such an insistent and impolite fashion, then being called a traitor will be the least of your problems.

Posted by Billy | October 6, 2007 12:21 AM

There is a story being floated around that Obama actually may have stolen his "Why I don't wear the pin" spiel from a Boy Scout. They have it over at Dearborn Underground.

Can you say Barak Obiden?


Posted by chas | October 6, 2007 12:25 AM

How about this circular internet thingie? I am the "reader" whose email David Freddoso printed! And I was following a line of thought I had posted on here the nite or 2 before.


Posted by ck | October 6, 2007 12:31 AM

Aside from using really tiresome adjectives before every democrat you mention on this blog, the post was important and well written - I'm glad you posted it...

have a nice weekend everyone... Go Bucks!

Posted by James Burke | October 6, 2007 12:58 AM

Are you sure you meant "Clemenceau"?

Posted by Adjoran | October 6, 2007 1:10 AM

As Dave noted, the courts have always held that treason requires an "overt act" beyond mere sympathy. It's not enough to root for the enemy, or to wish him well. Now, Code Pink may have crossed the line when they collected money to give to the Iraqi "insurgents," even though the "insurgents" declined the offer, but I'm not aware of other instances of such from the antiwar crowd (not to say they do not exist).

We need to recognize that undermining morale and encouraging the enemy DOES cost the lives of American soldiers, however, even if it does not meet the strict definition of "treason." This has been known since Alexander the Great at least.

They may not be "traitors," but may still be "anti-American." In our free society, that is their right, of course - but it is also our right to point it out.

Posted by Rose | October 6, 2007 4:06 AM

"Believing with you ...; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, ... Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
- Thomas Jefferson; January 1, 1802

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." --Dwight Eisenhower

"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." --George Washington

John Adams - Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.

Samuel Adams - Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.

Samuel Adams - A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.

Samuel Adams - The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Stalin once said, "America is like a healthy body, and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we (communists) can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."

Captain Ed, I cannot but wonder what our Vietnam Veterans would say of your definition of Treason, of being a traitor, to be as destructive as you wanna be, as long as you have "pure motives", or enough idiots in the opposing party to COUNT you as having "pure motives".

How badly does the house have to be destroyed before you call the children's activities more than "happy exuberance"? Yet they, being merely children, the parents will paddle their butts to discipline them and SAVE THE HOUSE from total destruction, REGARDLESS of the "INTENTIONS" of the miscreants!

These are adults, fully capable of assessing the consequences, when consequences land in their own faces, thrown there by others.
they show it when they slander the White House for THREE FULL YEARS over PLAMEGATE, SCREAMING for trials of wrongdoing for WHITE HOUSE ADMINSITRATION AND THE PRESIDENT - but suddenly go DEATHLY SILENT whent he real, LIBERAL perps are uncovered, and SUDDENLY, NOT A SINGLE PEEP about TRIALS for the PERPS, ANYMORE!

THIS IS UNCONSCIONABLE to label them innocent when THEY see the terrorists cite the the Liberals conduct in their encouragment of eachother, remember SADDAM told them LOOK AT VIETNAM - THEY WILL LOSE THEIR INTEREST if we keep it up.

"LOOK AT VIETNAM!" SADDAM told them! And the Liberals are coming through for them!

PLAINLY our Founding Fathers held people accountable for their actions.


Samuel Adams - The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Posted by The Plumber | October 6, 2007 4:07 AM

What if the "act" is not act at all? What if it is failure to fulfill an oath, like Article IV Sec 4.

Do we have to declare Mexico an enemy before calling Bush a traitor?

Posted by Rose | October 6, 2007 4:12 AM

Posted by jpm100 | October 5, 2007 8:30 PM

What if someone doesn't care if its right or wrong, correct or incorrect, but are simply playing to the audience.


You sound exactly like you must have heard Jon Stewart castigate Chris Matthews THIS WEEK when he interviewed him over Chris' new book, and Jon had read it, actually, and concluded that the TRUTH didn't matter to Chris as much as whether the ploy WORKED. And Chris admitted it was true, but didn't understand Jon's problem with that!

I saw the interview replayed on Fox and Friends, I think Thursday morning.

Boy was it HOT to see Chris get HARDBALLED by Jon!

Posted by njcommuter | October 6, 2007 4:26 AM

I never started wearing my flag pin because I couldn't find a good place for it on the shirts I wear. I'm wearing it now.

The big issue, it seems to me, is how so many people can be ignorant of the moral and physical gulf between us and our enemies. On the one hand freedom, human rights, hope, prosperity; on the other hand government ownership of citizens, expediency, despair, and misery.

These "blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" are no more the natural state of affairs than the World Trade Center was. They were the product of toil and sacrifice, and they can be brought down, and not rebuilt, when no good people can be found to defend them. The attackers were not greedy corporations or conservative politicians; they were terrorists energized by a utopian vision offering release from their own despair. Anyone who argues that the Bolsheviks, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, the Nazis, or any group willing to put expediency against human rights, is somehow benefitting mankind has failed his Remedial Common Sense exam, and should be treated as such. He may be a brilliant mathematician, chess player,or semiconductor physicist, but he has no credentials as a speaker of civics. The same must be said of anyone who would grant the al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any of their cronies any credence or credibility as leaders responsible to their subjects and the subjects' well-being.

Posted by Terrye | October 6, 2007 5:31 AM


I read David McCullough's biography of the second president John Adams, and it is worth noting that he thought his cousin Samuel was the Colonial version of Al Sharpton. Samuel helped bring about the Boston Massacre, John defended the British soldiers. John was also one of the framers of the Constitution. He said something that I think is true, partisanship is one of the greatest threats to the American political system.

Posted by Terrye | October 6, 2007 5:42 AM

I am wearing a flag shirt right now.

However, I think that we have to be careful about the names we call people.

I consider myself a patriotic American, but I have been called a traitor and an open border anarchist and unAmerican and all sorts of things because I supported comprehensive immigration reform.

Bush was accused of plotting against his own country over that Dubai deal, which of course was pure stupidity.

People have a right to their own opinions, there are fine Americans on both sides of almost any debate. I think we have forgotten that to the detriment of the country as a whole.

In fact we have devolved into me=good....you=bad.

And that is no way for a democratic republic and the greatest nation on earth to show itself to the world.

Posted by Chaos | October 6, 2007 6:33 AM

"The rest of us feel that's exactly where we're headed. The rest, the silent majority...we are pretty sick and tired of him, his party and the rest of you. I am part of that silent majority, the other 66 percent, and although we rarely kick up a fuss, come 2008 our silence will be heard. We will redefine what patriotism means. We will redefine who are and who are not patriots. And what was once a sea of red amid two blue bookends will take on a purple hue, the color of a new, more subtle, more nuanced patriotism.

I await that day with hope, and a prayer."

My what a whiny screed.

Don't kill yourself when the "silent majority" abandons you come summer.

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 6, 2007 6:36 AM

I like that Obama took off the pin. They have become plastacine patriotism. I think he muddled the message a little bit. There was a good point to make, but he didn't make it well.

That being said, as someone who's been called "anti-American" countless times on here, this is a welcome post.

Posted by Terry Gain | October 6, 2007 6:48 AM

Do Ahmadinejad and bin Laden quote Democratic talking points?

Was it more than two days between Ted Kennedy claiming Iraq is a quagmire and al Sadr saying the same thing?

Do demands for setting a date certain for withdrawal encourage insurgents to fight on?

Do insurgents fight on when encouraged by prominent citizens of their enemy to fight on?

Does insurgents fighting on cause the deaths of our soldiers?

Does describing as torture, acts which more closely resemble fraternity hazing, convince the enemy we are confused, weak and divided and does such speech thus not encourage the enemy to fight on?

Is it immoral to vote for a war and then undermine it for partisan political purposes?

Is it moral to unanimously confirm a commander and then stand silent as your supporters accuse him of treason (and that's what they did because they anticpated that he would deliver a somewhat positive report - which he did because the facts called for it).

After all this sacrifice and with encouraging reports coming from Iraq every day why is it not appropriate to question the motives of those who claim we should give up now (but don't actually vote for that result)?

Are some people paying for the free speech exercised by others?

Aren't the people paying for all this free speech already sacrificing enough for their country?

Must they also bear the burden of the excesses of others?

Posted by Tom Shipley | October 6, 2007 7:04 AM

Was it more than two days between Ted Kennedy claiming Iraq is a quagmire and al Sadr saying the same thing?

What is more than two days between George Bush saying our taxes are too high and Osama bin Laden saying the same thing?

Because bin Laden says the US taxes are two high, are you now against tax cuts?

Posted by crossdotcurve | October 6, 2007 7:36 AM

Hopefully this country will elect Obama, and we will have a serious person in charge.

Rudy is simply an unhinged egomaniac.

Posted by Sam Pender | October 6, 2007 7:41 AM

"Because bin Laden says the US taxes are two high, are you now against tax cuts?"

If only he said such things. Instead, Osama advocates things that are against the interests of the United States, and filled with Bush hate, decades of political disenfranchisement, and more, people are agreeing to Bin Laden's demands rather than even remotely protesting against him. Put more simply, people protest the US government, and those same people DO NOTHING to protest the death cult that's at war with the US. When was the last time CODEPINK, ANSWER, or even Democrats put out a press release stating a resolution to fight Al Queda? They don't, can't, and won't because in all those cases people prefer to protest against President Bush and a war that they can no longer stop rather than dare speak out against the head-sawer-offers. Nah, the left is only now starting to realize that the biggest liars in DC are the Democrats who have misled them into believing that it's not only ok, but morally right to ignore the needs of a nation that is under attack by terrorists. Let em die. They're only Iraqis seems to be the far left way.

No Tom, Bin Laden isn't ranting for higher taxes, he's threatening to kill us all (Yes, you included) if you do not advocate:

•“He [Osama Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.”
•“He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and
•“he protested U.S. support of Israel.”
-911 Commission Final Report pg 49

• Al Queda wants the US out of the gulf, so do many Americans.
• Al Queda wants the US to leave Iraq alone, so do many Americans.
• Al Queda wants the US to abandon Israel and let them fight off holocaust on their own, so do many Americans.

Of course, Bin Laden and Al Queda have said a lot in the hundreds of video and audio tapes they’ve released. Before the 911 attacks Bin Laden had called for Islamic holy war against the United States no less than FIVE TIMES (Since then, Al Queda has called for Holy War on the US so many times that even the CIA can’t provide a count!). In all of these ravings, Al Queda constantly voices its demands upon the American people-often very specifically.

•Al Queda wants the US to stop its war with Iraq (so do a majority of Americans)
•Al Queda wants the US to withdraw from the all over the world and stay within 12miles of our coast, so do many Americans. This is a core platform position of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul as well as Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.
•Many on the politically far left extreme advocate a cessation of American support for Israel
•Al Queda-Dr Ayman al Zawahiri specifically-called on Americans to vote for anti-war Democrats who seek the same objectives as Al Queda, and in November 2006, the American people answered that call.

All that's left is a mass conversion to Islam, then an oath to UBL. That's it. That's all that people have to do to go all the way and join Al Queda in their anti-American politics. Even if those Americans who are parroting and advocating Bin Laden's demands get a President who fulfills them...he and his death cult will still seek to saw off your heads, beat your wives, and hide your daughters under bhurkas in a land where there's no music, art, freedom, representation, and where even kite flying is prohibited. Why? Because you need to convert to Islam too.

Not gonna convert? Then why be weak and believe the rest of his BS? Doing so isn't going to save you-save us, and it's only encouraging UBL to rant his rants sans demands for conversion.

So, of

Posted by Terry Gain | October 6, 2007 7:43 AM

What is more than two days between George Bush saying our taxes are too high and Osama bin Laden saying the same thing? Tom Shipley

A rather exiguous response, Tom. One swallow doesn't make a spring and high taxes (which liberals love BTW) while counterproductive to a healthy economy, don't kill.

Posted by Artie Curtis | October 6, 2007 7:44 AM

I wear a pin of the US flag crossed with the Israeli flag. What does that make me?
I'm not taking up for Obama - I dont know what's in his heart. I'd just as soon no politician wear the country's flag.
Does anybody know the definition of a patriot? Here's mine - one who has or is about to sacrifice his life, his fortune and his sacred honor. By my own definition I am not a patriot. But I love my country.
I think this whole dustup by Obama is to provoke repubs and appeal to his leftist base. And it's working.

Posted by Terry Gain | October 6, 2007 7:49 AM

Hopefully this country will elect Obama, and we will have a serious person in charge.

Oh yes let's invade an ally (with nuclear weapons) and turn it into an enemy. Obama's serious allright. Seriously not qualified. Running for POTUS with his resume isn't egomaniacal?

Posted by Sam Pender | October 6, 2007 7:57 AM

OBAMA: If there are still large troop presences in -- when I take office, then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and initiate a phased redeployment. We've got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month.

I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq. The important principle, though, is there are not going to be any military solutions to the problem in Iraq. There has to be a political accommodation, and the best way for us to support the troops and to stabilize the situation in Iraq is to begin that phased redeployment.

RUSSERT: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?

OBAMA: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office -- which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable -- if there's no timetable -- then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.

I Love Sen Obama's speaking ability, and his ability to lead, but his international intelligence is completely lacking. This guy has no idea who the enemy is, how to fight them, or even where to fight them. He'd pull out combat force from Iraq (leaving the non-combat forces largely unprotected), bail from the fight there which is gutting Al Queda's numbers, and instead take the fight to the mts of Waziristan (one of the few areas on the planet that have never in the course of all of human history been successfully invaded-dating back to Alexander), and he'd blow off Iran will blowing up Pakistan (which has captured/killed more AQ than any other ally).

Brilliant strategy-fully driven by domestic politics in the face of all reality, but brilliant.

No wonder Islamic holy warriors and death cult leaders from Morocco to Indonesia tell Americans to vote for Democrats.

Posted by The Yell | October 6, 2007 8:18 AM

I have to agree with Rose. And I believe the law does too.

The Constitution, in fact, says nothing about intent. It specifies only two things--there be an actual enemy of the United States (the point that let Burr off) and positive acts of levying war and aid and comfort as demonstrations of adherence to that enemy.

The Supreme Court considered the sinister acts of giving a son a spare set of keys and the use of the family car in Haupt v United States (1947):

"It is urged that the conviction cannot be sustained because there is no sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy, the acts of aid and comfort being natural acts of aid for defendant's own son. Certainly that relationship is a fact for the jury to weigh along with others, and they were correctly instructed that if they found that defendants' intention was not to injure the United States but merely to aid his son 'as an individual, as distinguished from assisting him in his purpose, if such existed, of aiding the German Reich, or of injuring the United States, the defendant must be found not guilty.' The defendant can complain of no error in such a submission. It was for the jury to weigh the evidence that the acts proceeded from parental solicitude against the evidence of adherence to the German cause. It is argued that Haupt merely had [330 U.S. 631, 642] the misfortune to sire a traitor and all he did was to act as an indulgent father toward a disloyal son. In view however of the evidence of defendant's own statements that after the war he intended to return to Germany, that the United States was going to be defeated, that he would never permit his boy to join the American Army, that he would kill his son before he would send him to fight Germany, and others to the same effect, the jury apparently concluded that the son had the misfortune of being a chip off the old block-a tree inclined as the twig had been bent-metaphors which express the common sense observation that parents are as likely to influence the character of their children as are children to shape that of their parents. Such arguments are for the jury to decide." [emphasis added]

Haupt's treason conviction, and the life sentence, was upheld.

Maybe Reid and Murtha and Byrd and Schumer and Boxer don't intend to use their official powers to force a safeguard, because they "adhere" to Al Qaeda and find its continued existence in Iraq acceptable. "Such arguments are for the jury to decide."

Posted by Michael Smith | October 6, 2007 8:46 AM

Terry, you said:

Oh yes let's invade an ally (with nuclear weapons) and turn it into an enemy.

What good is an ally, nuclear or otherwise, that gives sanctuary to our mortal enemies?

I am not about to vote for Obama, but the controversy over his suggestion that if the Pakistani government won't go after bin-Laden, we should, drives home a terrible weakness in the pro-war position.

And the weakness is that the right has no answer to this question: Even if the war in Iraq turns out to be successful, what do we do then? What is the right's strategy for dealing with the global Islamic totalitarian movement?

It is abundantly clear by now that even if we achieve a semi-stable Iraq, that is not going to inspire some sort of sweeping, pro-freedom revolution in the mid-east that causes nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran -- who are the two biggest supporters of Islamic terrorism and are busy spreading it all over the world -- to suddenly take up freedom and eschew Islamic jihad. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that "spreading democracy" to the middle east is not going to work, at least not the way we are presently doing it.

With the lone exception of the Kurds in northern Iraq, election results all across the middle east, from Lebanon to the PLA to Egypt and even in Iraq show that Muslim populations do not want freedom -- they want the candidates that promise the greatest fealty to Islam and sharia -- or that show the greatest militancy toward the destruction of Israel.

The left has absolutely no plan for winning the war against Islamic totalitarianism. They are all engaging in the fantasy that we can win by doing things that have failed repeatedly -- international diplomacy, regional conferences, new anti-terrorist organizations, “talking to our enemies”, etc. Such proposals are silly nonsense that don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

But what is the right’s plan? The right, too, seems to be engaging in a fantasy, the fantasy of believing that we can win by using our military as a domestic police force to maintain order in Afghanistan and Iraq -- on the premise that if we stay the course we can eventually stabilize those two countries. I think that is a dubious proposition at best, considering how we are going about it, but even so, how does that help us win the larger war?

Six years after 9/11, al-Qaeda is still in business. Iran is still seeking nuclear weapons, they will undoubtedly continue trying to bring a nascent Iraqi government under their wing, and they’ll go on supplying their various proxies in Lebanon and the PLA with ever more deadly weapons. Saudi Arabia will go on funding salafist-infested madrassas to train the next generation of jihadists. Muslims will continue to hatch terrorist plots in the west and chances are, eventually, they will succeed and there will be another Madrid, another London tube bombing or something similar -- or something very much worse.

So how do we put an end to it? A stabilized Afghanistan and Iraq -- even if we achieve that -- isn’t going to do much, if anything, to achieve overall victory.

I am not saying this to criticize President Bush. I think he sincerely believed in the idea that “spreading democracy” would put an end to the support for Islamic terrorism -- probably because he believed all those apologists who told him that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists were a tiny minority despised by the great majority. Well, the last 6 years have proven that neither of those things is true about Islam, and that spreading democracy, the way we’ve attempted to do it, is not the answer.

We need a different approach. We need to do what is recommended here: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

Unfortunately, the net effect of the way we have chosen to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has been to thoroughly discredit -- with the majority of Americans any way -- the idea of using military force to end states that sponsor terrorism. Thus, it will take another horrific attack on America before the majority will be willing to entertain what that essay suggests. Just remember you read it here first.

Posted by bayam | October 6, 2007 8:48 AM

You're right, Obama is far too inexperienced to run for President and many of his statements betray his ignorance. Then again, it wasn't too long ago that voters put into office a man who couldn't pronounce big words and had a limited understanding of the world at large. So I wouldn't rule anything out at this point.

No wonder Islamic holy warriors and death cult leaders from Morocco to Indonesia tell Americans to vote for Democrats.

So do Europeans- does that mean that our allies want the US to lose the war on terror? If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the call has grown louder, as Bush has created far more terrorists than he has killed.

Captain't srgument could be turned in the other direction, of course. If you read Woodward's State of Denial, you learn that the top military and civilian leadership of this country was absolutely dismayed by Bush's failure to successfully execute and manage the war in Iraq. The book provides a rare glimpse into the key individuals shaping our wartime policy and the inner debates and meetings that led to crucial decisions. The reults were often tragic and could be misinterprted. Replacing General Jay Garner with Bremer, for example, or reversing the long-held goal of keeping the Iraqi army intact could be seen as treasonous attempts to bring about failure in Iraq.

(By the way, this was a common view on the Arab street, where many people deeply belived that the US was invincible. For example, the decision to allow the looting and pillaging of Iraqi cities after the ground war was viewed as an intential act to inflict maximum harm on the Iraqi nation.)

However, State of Denial conveys the thoughts and beliefs of many who surrounded Bush and provides an inside view of the government's decision-making process. It's clear that Bush did not intend to lose the war in Iraq- despite the fact that many of his actions could lead one to think otherwise. The top military and civialiann players may have found his incompetence disheartening and tragic, but no one believed that he acted with intent to allow Iraq to spiral out of control.

Many on the left need to read this post when accusing Bush of treason.

Posted by Sam Pender | October 6, 2007 9:14 AM

"So do Europeans- does that mean that our allies want the US to lose the war on terror? If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the call has grown louder, as Bush has created far more terrorists than he has killed."

Actually, yes, it does mean that many Europeans want America to lose in Iraq and elsewhere. Huge populations in Europe are sympathetic to Al Queda and more are prone to appeasement. The list of European success in preventing bloodbaths over the last 30yrs is short sans efforts primarily led and conducted by the US. And yeah, as much as 20% of Democrats polled say they want the US to lose.

btw, I love that line about "creating more terrorists" It's stupid. Sheer stupidity because it suggests one knows how many terrorists there were on March 16th 2003 and how many there are now. If one doesn't know X or Y then how can one claim X>Y? Nah, that's just political speculation supported by a few bureaucrats who were charged with protecting the US before 911, and failed, but somehow managed to keep their jobs and reputations regardless of that gross failure. If anything, the war in Iraq is killing terrorists wholesale-1000-1500 a month. Almost 30,000 terrorists have been killed or captured in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world...a feat that attacking Al Queda via law enforcement efforts could never accomplish.

If anything is creating terrorists its the hope via appeasement efforts as well as the straightup lies that the left creates and perpetuates about the Bush Administration. This propaganda is infinite in scale and number while American atrocities in Iraq are few and far between. One can't even argue that the death toll in Iraq is America's fault since most deaths are the result of terrorists, criminals, or insurgents, and don't even pretend that no one was dying or being raped, tortured, etc before the US invasion. Two words make that argument impossible: SADDAM HUSSEIN

Posted by Ron Hamilton | October 6, 2007 9:44 AM

Those of us who have served know who is patriotic and who is not. Democrats are by and large, not!
If you found yourself in a foxhole surrounded by enemies, the last thing you'd want to see in the foxhole with you is a democrat.

Posted by Steffan | October 6, 2007 9:50 AM

Ok. The specific law on this matter states:

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.

I don't happen to think that people who dissent from the party line are traitors. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Markos Sillytwit are not traitors.

Adam Gadahn, OTOH.... I'd happily pull the trigger on him. Not that I ever expect to get the chance.

Posted by skeptic | October 6, 2007 9:53 AM

Politicians lie. Get used to it. So if one wears a flag lapel pin means nothing about their patriotism. Conversely, one that does not wear one is not necessarily unpatriotic. In fact, I would trust the one not wearing the pin more than the one wearing the pin.

When journalists wear the pin I immediately discount everything they say. I want news. In other words facts. I don't want jingoistic nonsense to buck up the morale.

Why is this issue even coming up?

Posted by Zorgon | October 6, 2007 9:56 AM

Obama wants to be president of the U.S. of A. but can't be bothered to wear it's flag. It makes you wonder if he would stand up and represent America?

What's the difference between Clinton,Bush and Jane Fonda? Fonda has been to Vietnam.

Posted by Mike in Oregon | October 6, 2007 9:58 AM

"If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the call has grown louder, as Bush has created far more terrorists than he has killed."

Sort of like saying Roosevelt created a far bigger German army because we declared war on Germany.

Posted by Chaos | October 6, 2007 10:16 AM

Shameless pandering by Obama to the "sophisticated" who have decided that any expression of patriotism simply isn't kosher. You can't put a sticker on your car, that's apparently shallow. You can't wear a pin, shallow as well. You can't support the war, you're a chickenhawk. You can't go sign up for the military, you're too dumb and lazy (according to Senator Kerry) to get a real job and have to settle for the sand dunes. You can't go into law enforcement, that's helping the BushCo junta. You can go work for some massive wasteful government bureaucracy because that's progressive or something.

The only proper way to be patriotic to people like Skeptic is to agree with everything they say and help in the great government swindle.

"It is abundantly clear by now that even if we achieve a semi-stable Iraq, that is not going to inspire some sort of sweeping, pro-freedom revolution in the mid-east that causes nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran"

Iraq will be economically liberal and economically successful if it can achieve stability, which will bring about the same effect. Bush's biggest mistake was trying to build democracy before building an Iraqi economy.

"So how do we put an end to it? A stabilized Afghanistan and Iraq -- even if we achieve that -- isn’t going to do much, if anything, to achieve overall victory."

On the contrary, this war is a war more of narratives than anything else. One way to defeat the enemy narrative is to visit such destruction upon him that he gives up his narrative in order to survive. That obviously is not going to work against al-Qaeda unless we have a draft and invade one Muslim country after another, starting in Morocco and moving East until we reach Afghanistan again. The other way is to use the tactics of General Petraeus's COIN manual, but unfortunately a comprehensive strategic way to utilize them has not yet been developed. The assumption by the military and the Administration that progress in Iraq will be self-evident and there needs to be no propaganda campaign save some efforts like Freedom Watch or whatever (dwarfed by the anti-war organizations) because their credibility is allegedly so low is in my opinion a great blunder.

"When journalists wear the pin I immediately discount everything they say. I want news. In other words facts. I don't want jingoistic nonsense to buck up the morale."

Skeptic you have made it very obvious that you don't want facts, you want facts that are ideologically acceptable. If they aren't, then you dismiss them. The idea that someone would discount a journalist simply because they wear an American flag pin is ludicrous. It is, quite frankly, unpatriotic and anti-American. It is saying that anyone wearing the symbols of the nation is to you automatically suspect as a liar working for a certain ideology you disagree with. It is theft of a symbol of the country by you from everyone who wishes to use it because you declare that it universally means "jingoism" and other words you undoubtedly think everyone should find repugnant.

God but you're a pathetic excuse for a person.

Posted by Terry Gain | October 6, 2007 10:51 AM

The liberation of Iraq is a great success with many positive outcomes.

The first positive outcome is that that the terrorist supporting enemy of America (the list is long) Saddam Hussein will never be in possession of nuclear weapons. The lengths to which Saddaam went to acquire nuclear weapons prior to the Gulf War (and how close he came) are described in detail in McGrory and Bhattia's 1999 book Saddam's Bomb.

It requires a naivete of the first order to believe he wouldn't have re-constituted his nuclear weapons program the moment sanctions ended and the world again turned its back on him -as it would have.

The second great outcome of the Iraq war is that by reason of its strategy of killing innocent Muslim citizens en masse in an attempt to drive America out of Iraq (a strategy that impressed the Democrats and American media alike) al Qaeda has destroyed its reputation among Muslims and terrorism is now rejected by a large percentage of Muslims. (The incomparable John Wixted -Engram at Back Talk Blog- had had many posts on this phenomenon. It is a phenomenon which the BDS suffering MSM won't report as it goes against their narrative of the last 4 years.)

The third great outcome is the decimation of al Qaeda leadership. Every week in Iraq dozens of their recruits and several of their middle management guys bite the dust. The fact that with people like Bush around there is no future in jihad is slowing sinking in - despite all the encouragement from the BDS sufferers back in America. The statement that "Bush has created more terrorists" needs to be correctected to "Bush has created more dead terrorists"

The fourth great outcome is the democratization of Iraq. Contrary to the propaganda from the MSM and Democrats the vast majority of Iraqis are not Islamic extremists. It's expecting a lot for the good people of Iraq to have developed a Jeffersoniaan democracy in such a short period of time. The occupation of their country ended in June 2004. They have not had 6 years as some allege or even 4.5. The clock did not really start ticking until the December 05 elections.

Posted by navyman54t | October 6, 2007 10:57 AM

Having just read all these post, both left and right, it reminds me that these are merely opinions and nothing more. Well opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. As Will Rogers once said everyone is ignorant, just on different subjects.

Posted by Nate | October 6, 2007 11:11 AM


I read that article quite a while ago and agreed with it. But I felt then that before America would be willing to do what it prescribes, all other options would have to be exhausted. I think Bush has always understood this, and yet still had to try to confront Islamic totalitarianism with the nation he has. Today's PC America is not going to do what is prescribed in that article without first giving the Middle East the choice to choose another path. Bush has tried to offer them freedom so they can choose it.

This attempt to combat the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism with our own ideology of freedom is, as Bush has said countless times, "the great ideological struggle of our time," and it is beyond ambitious. But even if it fails (and I still hope), it will have been a worthy and noble effort, a necessary step in preparing us for what we may soon have to do.

It's ironic to me that we sit here today, the day after global "Death to America Day", parsing each others statements for the technical evidence of treason, seemingly oblivious to the encroaching danger of Islamic totalitarianism.

I saw pictures yesterday of people in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Kashmir, Gaza, Indonesia, Turkey, Lebanon, Bahrain and other places, all gathered together for the purpose of expressing their hatred of us, their clear intent to make us eventually submit to their will. I saw pictures of children with guns, entire generations raised with the notion that the greatest use of their lives would be to die for Allah while killing Americans and Jews. They obviously believe it, they intend to do it, they have proven they can hurt us, and yet ... we look inward.

Bush has been trying to prepare this country for a coming storm. His attempt to spread freedom in the Middle East may yet fail, but the attempt is relieving our national conscience of the duty to try it, and thus we are more prepared to what must come next if we fail.

Unfortunately for us all, its going to take something horrific for the idiotic left in this country to figure out that our real enemy is not George Bush. But when it finally occurs, thanks largely to George Bush, they will hopefully be better prepared to face the future battle to save the Western way of life.

Posted by Lowly Knave | October 6, 2007 11:28 AM

Rather than dissenters, I would think it's the insurgents who are killing the soldiers.

I couldn't disagree more, Cap'n. When War begins, we must speak with one voice or risk failure. That's why the debate ends at the waters edge. In one of the communiques issued, it was stated that America would tire of a protracted War. The enemy gets this notion from the events of Viet Nam where defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory.

The lessons of Viet Nam are not lost on this enemy. They await our "Redeployment" and will fight on as long as they have the American left fighting as a fifth column. Thus, the left is complicit in the deaths of Americans and others.

If that is not enough to lodge a charge of Treason, then let's look at the definition.

1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery

2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

The leftists have relished in the downfall of many people in this administration, Rumsfeld, Libby, Gonzales, and relish the obstruction of nominees to the bench and the administration: They actively are trying to overthrow the government. They only have to make a deal with the devil to obtain power. If that isn't Treason, then they control the definitions.

In the very least it is sedition.

They openly advocate seceding from the Union.

In closing, these people do not care about victory nor defeat. They don't care about duty, honor, nor country. They only care about the assumption of power.

That, to me, is treason. And no, I won't try to placate them by mincing words; that would be a form of appeasement, as well.

Posted by john | October 6, 2007 11:40 AM

"But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore, They're already over crowded from your dirty little war, And Jesus don't like killing no matter what the reason's for, And your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore."
John Prine

Posted by docjim505 | October 6, 2007 11:46 AM

patriot (pā'trē-ət, -ŏt'): n. One who loves, supports, and defends one's country (1)

I've seen damned little of this behavior from many democrats these past few years. Indeed, let's remember that certain prominent democrats (Jon Kary comes to mind) exhibited the OPPOSITE behavior thirty years ago when they were rooting against the United States in another war.

Let's also consider the piss-weak definition of patriotism offered by certain lefties. They protest that they love the principles that they claim our country stands for.(2) Apparently, the simple phrase, "I love my country" sticks in their throats. There are other countries that share our principles (some of them, like Germany and Japan, only because Americans shed blood and treasure to destroy their hateful, despotic regimes and replace them with democratic governments modeled on our own); do the "brave patriots" of the left love them, too? Is America no better or worse, does our country hold no more sway on their hearts, than Britain or Japan or Israel?(3)

In my experience, lefty "patriots" also love to cite that old saw from Chesterton:

My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober.

I wonder if anybody ever asked Chesterton, "So, if your mother was lying drunk in the gutter, you'd simply walk by and pretend not to know her until she sobered up? Or would you join the crowd that laughed at her?" It would appear that many lefty "patriots" would do so, judging by how they behave when America does something they don't like. I can't recall seeing conservatives burn the American flag; this seems to be a strictly liberal act.

I can imagine conditions in which I would not support my country's actions, but the idea of making ANY statement derogatory to or critical of the honor of the United States is so repugant as to make me physically ill. To my mind, an American patriot shares the sentiment of Commodore Decataur:

"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!"

I can't imagine a liberal saying these words without a grimace or a laugh of derision.

May I also say that, when you have to try to convince people that you are a patriot... You aren't.

Cap'n Ed mentioned Neville Chamberlain as an example of a man who was tragically wrong but was also a patriot. I agree, but I think that misses the point. To my knowledge, Chamberlain NEVER spoke ill of Britain, and when the war that he worked so hard (and so foolishly) to avoid came, he didn't spend his time publicly criticizing his country or the government that replaced his own. Rather, he rolled up his sleeves and worked with all his might for Britain's victory until he died shortly after the war began. The mind boggles at the idea of Chamberlain referring to British soldiers as "murderers" or "terrorists" or saying that they were "raiding villages and killing civilians" (which, in point of fact, they WERE doing; war is an ugly business); it is impossible to imagine him publicly referring to Churchill as a liar, or supporting a newspaper advertizement calling Sir Alan Brooke a traitor. And do we really think that Oxford or Cambridge would have asked Hitler or Mussolini to stop by and say a few words to the cheers of the audience? Would the Times of London have published the fact that British intelligence had broken the ENIGMA cipher and were reading Germany radio traffic?(4)

I will admit that the word "traitor" gets tossed around too freely by me and others. Legally, none of the filthy dems have committed actual treason (one wonders what their rabid followers would do if one of them actually DID. Doubtless, we'd be told that selling secrets or giving money to the enemy or even carrying arms on his behalf is "patriotic"). In my defense, I don't know what else to call people who deride my country and support politicians and policies who want to see the United States defeated and humiliated. Except for the fact that they have (apparently) received no blood money, there is little to choose in my mind between a liberal "patriot" who roots against America and Benedict Arnold who actively tried to sell us out. Both are motivated by sheer selfishness, and both would bring America to wreck and ruin if they could.

Piss on 'em.


(1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriot

(2) Which, apparently, includes the rights to slander our troops, vandalize military property, make statements undermining our war effort, publish classified information, etc.

(3) Let me make it unmistakably clear that I have considerable affection for various other peoples and nations, and want no quarrel with anybody. But just as I worship only one God, there is one flag that flies highest in my heart, and that is the Stars and Stripes.

(4) I am no expert on the history of ENIGMA, but it is worth noting that Polish intelligence had worked wonders in cracking ENIGMA before World War II. So much for "dumb Polacks"...

Posted by docjim505 | October 6, 2007 11:55 AM


Thanks for providing the quotes from some of our Founding Fathers. You often do this, and I appreciate it very much. They were great men, and it's worthwhile and inspiring to read what they wrote and said.

I just wish you wouldn't shout so much...

Posted by Terry Gain | October 6, 2007 11:59 AM


Well said.

Posted by Terry Gain | October 6, 2007 12:02 PM

I was referring to your penultimate post. I have no opinion on whether Rose shouts.

Posted by David M | October 6, 2007 12:20 PM

Patriotism by The Thunder Run
Captain Ed has an excellant post up right now about patriotism and how it differs from treason. Mr. Morrissey is more than willing to allow that our Democratic leaders in Congress are patriotic because they don't actually want the US to fail in its mission, or see harm come to our country - I'm not so sure I'd agree.

Posted by Nate | October 6, 2007 1:10 PM


In my defense, I don't know what else to call people who deride my country and support politicians and policies who want to see the United States defeated and humiliated.

I don't either, but like Tregonsee noted above they behave in a way that is "functionally indistinguishable from genuine treason."

At the very least, it is fair to say that they are detracting from our ability to win the war against Islamic totalitarianism, while offering no solutions of their own for how to address the problem. The most charitable term I can think of for these useless fellow Americans is "dead weight".

Posted by FredTownWard | October 6, 2007 3:34 PM

While I would agree with the basic idea that we should do what we can to maintain the presence or absence of ad hominem lies as a useful distinction between leftists and rightists, between liberals and conservatives, and between Democrats and Republicans, that doesn't mean we cannot call a spade a spade.

During wartime, if you cannot even muster the desire for your country to win it, you are BY DEFINITION unpatriotic and have no legitimate complaint when you are called on it.

Likewise, if you INTENTIONALLY say or do ANYTHING in order to bring about the wartime defeat of your country that you desire, you are BY DEFINITION a traitor and have no legitimate complaint when you are called on it or even if you are prosecuted as you at least theoretically COULD be for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

I submit that relatively few of the obviously unpatriotic, arguably treasonous prominent Democrat politicians can plausibly claim at this point that their treasonous words and actions were not intentional.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | October 6, 2007 5:43 PM

RE: docjim505 (October 6, 2007 11:46 AM)

Excellent, doc.

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 6, 2007 6:33 PM

John Prine,

"Your missing flag decal won't get you into heaven any more. As much as Jesus may dislike killing, he dislikes even more those who stand by and do nothing while evil stalks his people. When you reach the gates of heaven, He will ask, what did you do for the meek and helpless? Why did you let them die? And, if you respond, 'I could do nothing, because it would have involved killing other humans', you won't like the look on His face -- He who drove out the moneychangers. At that moment, the you will realize that the presence or lack of a flag decals had very little to do with His judgement -- your sins of omission did."


Posted by unclesmrgol | October 6, 2007 7:28 PM

Tom Shipley said

Because bin Laden says the US taxes are two high, are you now against tax cuts?

Actually, while bin Ladin did say we consider our taxes too high, his solution was not to cut them -- it was to embrace Islam, which, with its mandate of jizyah for nonbelievers, would certainly result in increased taxes, not decreased ones.

So maybe there's an equivalence of Al Qaeda and blue dog Democrats -- both secretly campaign for tax increases under the guise of tax decreases.

Posted by Burford Holly | October 6, 2007 9:58 PM

The "Neville Chamberlain" train of thought is so tired. Could Neville have ripped Hitlers throat out with his teeth? Probably not. If he'd been in charge, could Churchill have gotten England to go to war in 1938? Probably not. Was America ready to attack Hitler in 1938? Absolutely not, the interest level was probably about zero.

Being for a dumb war does not make someone Churchill, or Lincoln, or Grant, or George Washington. It just means they're dumb.

Actually, the person that many conservatives called "Neville Chamberlain" was Ronald Reagan for talking to the Russians.

Posted by john | October 7, 2007 12:01 AM


You missed the point of my quoting an old John Prine song. During the endtime of the Viet Nam War it was all the rage to have a flag decal in your car window, to prove your patroitism, like wearing a flag lapel pin seems to have taken on now. Wearing a flag on your car or your clothing proves nothing about being right or wrong. That was one of the points Ed was making. That is one of the points of what John Prine wrote the song about (I'm not John Prine, just happen to have the same first name). That and how blind patriotism in time of a misguided war won't get you into heaven.

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 7, 2007 12:25 AM

Wearing an American Flag on one's lapel is a political statement, and a partiotic statement as well, in most circles in our society. Such is subject to interpretation by any and all who view it and the wearer.

Not wearing one, likewise, may be construed as a poltical statement, and a patriotic statement as well. Also subject to interpretation.

Wearing one, and then dispensing with the same is also a political statement. Obama trying to justify his no longer wearing the American Flag is a personal choice, and a political statement, and he is subject to being viewed and his actions interpreted by the public at large.

He has made himself a national figure. His choice. If certain quarters condemn his actions, that is their God given Right to do so. If he cries foul, then he has shown himself a far lesser man (and citizen) than he is trying to convince us that he is.

One speaks, exercises one's First Amendment Rights, voluntarily. One is also subject to taking on the responsibility for one's speech or actions. Trying to condemn those for whatever reasons who voluntarily wear the American Flag on their lapels, or fly the Flag from their homes, because of some reasoning that people who display the Flag are scoundrels and false patriots is a weak, very weak, conjecture.

Such says much more about the person condemning those who chose to wear the flag, scoundrels or not, than it does those same so-called scoundrels.

Posted by Rose | October 7, 2007 2:22 AM

Posted by coldwarrior415 | October 7, 2007 12:25 AM


Apparently, the pin was burning a hole in Obama's lapel, straight through to his skin.

Posted by Rose | October 7, 2007 2:33 AM

Posted by docjim505 | October 6, 2007 11:55 AM


Thanks for providing the quotes from some of our Founding Fathers. You often do this, and I appreciate it very much. They were great men, and it's worthwhile and inspiring to read what they wrote and said.

I just wish you wouldn't shout so much...


Thanks very much, Doc. I really love those guys, too. And getting internetted has helped me realize how many folks we still have who are defintely off the same tree, no doubt about it.

And I am trying to not shout so much.

I just typed too much when we didn't have the other alternatives, and extra fonts, to emphasis our words, and I hate my main points to get lost in my wordiness, and "stuffing a sock in my mouth" is useless, I'm afraid.

Teachers tried from the 5th grade to get me to write short sentences, while they were still trying to get many to abandon the "See Spot run" variety.


I'm trying.

Just know that most of the time, for me, it isn't shouting, just trying to stress a point.

However, I guess as we wind back to the Elections again, it does seem sometimes to be a little more real shouting, sometimes - I might as well confess.

I'll try harder. Promise. :)

Posted by Rose | October 7, 2007 2:46 AM

Posted by john | October 7, 2007 12:01 AM


Deliberately committing Treason, because you ~sincerely believe your nation is wrong~ in a time of war won't keep you out of hell, either.

Even if you manage to make a lot of people think you are only naively stupid or something.
Mostly only because they don't want to face the facts of your real attitude and behavior, for many reasons.

I remember the '60's and how much the music, etc, et al, helped sell the Stalinist agenda to stupid spoiled American kids who were screaming for their parents' attention - especially with the help of a lot of drugs, psychedelics, a fabulous sense of humor, and a lot of "free love".

If you remember the '60's, you are definitely old enough to have grown up, by now. And old enough to realize your own responsibilities for keeping your community safe.


Posted by Rose | October 7, 2007 3:00 AM

Posted by docjim505 | October 6, 2007 11:46 AM

Posted by FredTownWard | October 6, 2007 3:34 PM

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 6, 2007 6:33 PM


EXCELLENT!!! TOP NOTCH!!! Really terrific!


Posted by Nate | October 6, 2007 1:10 PM

...The most charitable term I can think of for these useless fellow Americans is "dead weight".

Hello, Nate, :)
I'd call that extremely generous, since they are so very very much more detrimental to the cause than mere "dead weight".

Dead weight would be a monumental improvement from what they are, now.


Posted by Terry Gain | October 6, 2007 12:02 PM


:) It doesn't FEEL like shouting. I'm really trying not to. :) hehehehe

Posted by The Yell | October 7, 2007 3:00 AM

"I don't happen to think that people who dissent from the party line are traitors. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Markos Sillytwit are not traitors."

Legislating a unilateral cease-fire is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and as the Court ruled sixty years ago, disloyal statements are evidence of adherence to the enemy cause.

You can't argue that they may say we've lost the war but they lack the treasonous intent. By saying we've lost and need to quit, they demonstrate the treasonous intent.

Posted by Rose | October 7, 2007 3:40 AM

Posted by john | October 6, 2007 11:40 AM

... And Jesus don't like killing no matter what the reason's for...
John Prine


So, John Prine never picked up a Bible and read Jesus' own words and actions before...and in all the years since he wrote that, you never did, either???

tsk tsk tsk, such a shame. If for no other reason than what you make of yourself when you open your mouth and insert foot the same way Algore did when he told us in the Fall of 2000, just barely before the Election, when he had obviously heard the prophecy out by a proven and established prophet that a man of God would win that election, and so he came out and said [to the Christians, directly], that they could know that he was with them, completely, because John 16:3 was his favorite Bible verse, and just just says it all.

We all knew, when that rolled off his tongue and he didn't feel the sound of it misfire at all, he didn't have a familiarity with that verse at all.
He didn't hear himself trip and fall down three flights of stairs in a feat that would have stunned Gerald Ford...

He's never looked it up, since, then, either.
the rest of us laughed all the way to the polls.

I'll let you in on your stumble, though. It was the word you used: "killing".

Actually, Jesus Himself has participated in some considerable "killing" - for some excellent reasons, and He will again.

But murder, John - THAT is a different story, entirely. Selfish, self-centered, hateful deliberate, willfull murder. No, Jesus doesn't think there is EVER a good reason for MURDER, John. But Jesus Himself will kill murderers with Death.

Remember that the next time you go about promoting such things as ABORTION, and NOT QUARANTINING deadly diseases when they are containable, such as AIDS and other STDs, all as the result of SELFISH choices in total disregard of what is best for the others involved.

But a SOLDIER, doing his duty to protect his homeland??????? Shame shame shame, John, from a person who doesn't condemn terrorists' MURDERING innocents. tsk tsk tsk.

Obadiah; Ezekial 38 and 39; Jeremiah 50 and 51; Revelations, Numbers 16; Numbers 25; Genesis 38:6-10; Acts 5; Joshua 5:14, 15 [no angel of the lord ever accepted worship from a man he might speak with, but this Person did, and told Joshua the ground was holy]; Joshua 6.

No, Jesus is a Man of war, indeed, and fights valiently for those for whom He loves and are His. And [Zechariah, Obadiah, Jeremiah 50 and 51] He sets nations against the nations that come against Israel.

Try to stand between God and the enemies of His people. Try to do to God for the enemies of His people as you have done to America and the enemies of HER people. And please, don't let it bother you, that as per the LISTS of the nations that appertains to, found in Ezekial 38 and 39, and in Revelations also, please don't let it bother you that those are COMMON [identical] lists, which are the SAME.

But praise be to God for He is taking REMNANTS AS WE SPEAK as an inherentance for Himself, the BLESSING OF ISRAEL to the Nations, as God gets glory for Himself by going even where the enemies have shut and locked the gates and doors against Him. Even as He kept Rahab and her family for Himself out of Jericho.

Posted by Rose | October 7, 2007 3:46 AM

Posted by The Yell | October 7, 2007 3:00 AM



Posted by mariner | October 7, 2007 1:56 PM

one has to commit a treasonous act in accordance with the Constitution to meet the legal requirement of being a traitor

This is not correct.

One may be a traitor, without being guilty of treason.

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 7, 2007 11:47 PM


And my point is that blind non-patriotism won't get you there either. Nor will blind pacifism.

But patriotism is essential for a man who would be President. After all, he will swear to protect this country and all that it stands for.

And the flag is the penultimate symbol of this country and what it stands for.

And, at the end of the Vietnam War or even during that war, it was not the rage to have flag decals on your car or your window -- because flag decals were not the big sellers they are nowadays. In fact, it wasn't even the rage to put up any kind of American flag. I know, because I'm old enough to know. During those years, I once had my American flag torn from my home on Memorial Day and burned. Even today, few people put up flags even on our national holidays. You can ask any veteran of that war what it was like to come home, and they'll tell you patriotism was definitely not in vogue.

Now, since John Prine assumes things about the nature of Jesus and pacifism:

You are at one end of a very long narrow room. The room is lined on each side by baby bassinets. Each bassinet holds a baby; there are hundreds of them. A man wielding a butcher knife enters the room from a door on the opposite end. He begins moving down the row of bassinets, methodically using his knife to slit the throat of each occupant, first the right one, then the left. He appears to ignore you. As he is slowly moving through the rows of babies toward your end of the room, you notice a small table next to you, upon which resides a Bible, a loaded pistol, and a megaphone. There is also a lockable door to your rear which will prevent the man from reaching you should you wish. What do you do, and why?

Posted by docjim505 | October 8, 2007 6:38 PM


Is there a spare magazine for the pistol? I believe in being thorough...

Post a comment