7/22/2005
Treason Hunters Contest
I’m taking submissions for a contest about the Anti-American left. I’m looking for a visual representation of what you would do if you were George Washington and someone like Stephen Pearcy was in your command.
George Washington shot and hung “dissenters”…people who went AWOL weren’t allowed to live.
It was called “treason”.
This post will stay at the top of the blog–this is a two-week contest and will end on August 5.
I will be sending you a Stop the ACLU T-shirt of your choice to the winner.
The Wide Awakes will be the judges.
Send your submissions to: Caoilfhionn1@gmail.com. I will be posting the top 5 submissions with commentaries frm the various members of TWA.
Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
That is all.
This image is not much different than what Ward Churchill has said is it? So why are the leftists all upset over it? Maybe they’d feel better if the Stephen Pearcy image was an American soldier and not a leftist pansy Berkley boy, heh?
This picture was taken at an event where Kerry pretended he supports our 2nd amendment rights. It’s familiar to see him straddling any issue, but this clearly shows that gun owners know his voting record, :lol:. I know some leftists are horrified by this image, but you guys really need to get a sense of humor. I mean considering that the people who oppose Kerry actually do believe in 2nd amendment rights. There are so many funny points about this…Kerry actually believes gun control will foil terrorists’ master plan… But then he owns a communist chinese assault rifle…which is illegal.
You get the idea. This is all for the sake of “artistic expression” and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Take THAT, Idiotaria! One more blow for the cause of..”freedom of expression”
bupropion linked with bupropion
NIF linked with Man-at-arms of Haunted Houses
NIF linked with Teenage Mutant Ninja Knight
Swap Blog linked with It is time Senator
NIF linked with It is might hot out
basil's blog linked with Weekend Brunch
July 23rd, 2005 at 1:32 am
:cool:General Sherman also made quick work of these people as well Cao.by the way how are you doing?and how’s your shoulder problem?have you made some significant improvements?I do wish you and your family all the best.And may God continue to bless you exceedingly above what you can ask or think.
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:03 am
Funny how some readers absolutely “get it”. Lisa, I appreciate you. Thanks for asking, the shoulder is improving but I still have pain…and I’m trying to find out how surgery would help me. I may have to go that route–but my range of motion is very much improved and the pain has dissipated somewhat from what it was just weeks ago. God bless you and yours, too!
July 23rd, 2005 at 6:57 am
Have you noticed how little use the word “treason” gets in the msm?
July 23rd, 2005 at 7:44 am
I’d do the following:
1. Give him ALL of your arm/shoulder pain.
2. Throw up a thick rope around a large branch in a huge tree.
3. Place him on a horse under the tree; place rope around his neck.
4. Slap the horse hard on the ***.
5. Cut him down from the tree; attach to horse and drag him back to camp.
6. Beat the hell out of him for pissing me off.
7. Shoot him in the *** with a shotgun blast.
8. Attach him to the horse again.
9. Drag his sorry *** all the way to the San Francisco Bridge.
10. At the highest point of the Bridge, attach a 30-lb iron anchor around his neck.
11. Stand him on the railing; tell him to look toward his Office and kick his *** off the railing.
12. Ride back to camp; have a few beer’s; and quietly say … Man Overboard.:lol::mrgreen:
July 23rd, 2005 at 9:01 am
Weekend Brunch
# Cao’s Blog is running a Treason Hunters Contest.
# Charmaine Yoest asks “Who’s homophobic now?”
# William Teach (at Common Sense Runs Wild) promotes racial profiling.
# Cranky Neocon looks at the health of the MSM.
# Cowboy Blob remembers a l…
July 23rd, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Hmmm…I’ve got quite a few i could submit.
July 23rd, 2005 at 6:45 pm
Don’t you mean Aug 5? Sept 5 is more than 2 weeks away.
Good luck with your contest.
July 23rd, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Yeah…I’m ahead of myself…I’ll have to change that. I mean two weeks.
July 23rd, 2005 at 9:38 pm
It is might hot out
Weekend, limited-edition of NIF
July 24th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
You, like most of your neo-con facists have no idea of what Washington stood for. A study of Washington as a man and a military leader shows that on the few occasions were he was forced to discipline soldiers he did so with great hesitation and without any of the zeal that your comments indicate.
Furthermore, James Thomas Flexner, winner of the special pulitzer prize citation and Washington biographer writes in his 1969 Biography of Washington
“only washington transcended the dichotomy, wishing to gather equally from both systems what he considered most useful to the united states. He was indeed, so far above the battle that, although he was bothered by syptoms of national disunity”
What made Washington a great man and leader was that he put aside his agenda and made personal and political sacrifices to build the foundation for the institutions we hold sacred today.
Flexner also wrote that the Founding Father was “Janus like” in his ability to look both forward and backward.
In fact after the revolutionary war Washington worked hard to relieve the anger against Colonialist who had supported the British. He knew that in order for our nation to be strong there needed to be a period of national healing in order to build a strong republic.
Washington would NEVER have espoused the idea of “Treason Hunters” to attack people who differed from his political viewpoint. Lest you forget, the Bill of Rights. There is something in there called The right to Free Speech!
If you fail to understand history your are doomed to repeat. A problem The Bush administration continues to make over and over again.
July 24th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
That’s right, you should read his “rules of civility” to get an idea of what a gentleman he was. He did, in fact, even return the dog of a general he was at war with, with a personal note. But the days of manners and civility seem to be over, as indicated by the tone of your comment here. Talk about burying history according to your partisan interests!
Oh, I get it, we’re the ones that don’t understand the spirit of the founding documents or history…that’s why leftists claim the Constitution is a “living document” and that they were secularists and deists, and that George Washington can be compared to the terrorists in Iraq.
A cursory glance of the federalist papers and their personal letters indicate otherwise, but you’re the ones who throw those terms around like “fascist” without really understanding what it means.
Yeah, communism has killed over 100 million people–let’s give it another try! The terrorists are freedom fighters! (nevermind that the Baathists [you know, the guys with the black clothes with the swords filming beheadings, shooting unarmed injured people and using mosques as car bomb factories?] are the Socialist party of Iraq!) Saddam’s own Uncle was a Nazi, Saddam himself an admirer of Stalin and Hitler–only he felt Hitler didn’t go far enough. Hence, his own “final solution”: the Anfal Campaign.
I think you’re sorely mistaken with the name-calling, but whatever floats your boat, lefty.
Try some original thought rather than the **** that your chomsky-ite professors are shoving down your throat, will ya? Geez. Leftist creep.
July 24th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Rob, first you have no contact info, so that means that A) I have nowhere to see what you write, or if you do, and B) You are a coward.
But then I expect that from someone who has no clue what the term fascist means.
Go look up fascist, then try the tired old argument attempting to show how Bush and Co. are fascist. Then I can smack you down when you think you have some learnin’ under your belt you moron.
July 24th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
You are hillarious! You suggest I read his rules of civility and moan about how civility and manners are all but gone in todays politacal discourse.
Then you go on to call me a Leftist creep, and accuse me of being a communist. All this occurs on a website that has a gun pointed at a Mans head, a photo accusing grandmothers of being Al-Qaida, and a doctored photo of a US Senator in a communist uniform.
Well in the spirit of your version of “Civility”……
Go F–K yourself you ignorant moron!
Post a picture of yourself. You are a traitor to the very ideals which make this country great.
July 24th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
First.
Fascist:
adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; “fascist propaganda” [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views
Second:
Why would I post my email or weblog to a group that basically advocates the murder of american citizens who do not subscribe to the point of view?
Dumb F–K
July 24th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
and you’re a pathetic whining disrespectful insolent coward, but it’s obvious you don’t care, lol…
Fact is, George Washington thought enough of our country to prosecute people for treasonous behavior. Now you try to make light of it and try to belittle me for bringing it up. Because leftists don’t believe anyone should die…or even be imprisoned, lol! Where they get that from, I don’t know, but that stupidity certainly doesn’t “protect the innocent”.
Tough white crackers, lol
Another troll leftist that’s asking to be banned with this sick behavior.
I support the original documents, not the revisionist view of history, lol…I’m sorry you feel that way but you’re mental illness is not my problem.
Oh, and I support the death penalty, too–for child molesters and others who can’t be rehabilitated. They shouldn’t be walking among the rest of us after having done despicable acts against children, etc.. We can easily solve the problem of paying for the upkeep of people on death row…they had their fair trial…they had their “go” at the system, they shouldn’t be allowed to appeal and appeal and sue the courts for chunky peanut butter- and cost the taxpayers more money.
hmmmm. That was an interesting definition of “fascist”, lol…a very “selective” one, wasn’t it, Kender, old man?
Thesaurus for Fascist: authoritarian, autocratic, totalitarian, dictatorial, absolutist, despotic.
Fascist is what Saddam was–not what the US. But Kender is very good at explaining it…
July 24th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Rob, there is obviously a difference between treason and dissent. You can say down with America all day long and burn our flag, and spit on us troops. There is a line however…such as defending the declared enemy of democracy…that would be treason. Such as the ACLU does. Such as many on the left do–sympathize with the enemy. Whine, and sympathize all you want…but when politically driven organizations actually take part in these kinds of things…aiding the enemy. That is treason, and Washington most definitely would have supported hunting them down.
July 24th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Give me a specific example of the ACLU that is treacherous and warrants either death or imprisonment.
And for the record, not that it should matter, I wore the uniform of a commissioned officer in our armed forces. I know the UCMJ, and I know the definition of treason.
July 24th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Rob…here are a few:
, here, and here
July 24th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Or fine.
If you know it so well, (and it’s even quoted above) you should at least get it RIGHT.
I would say defending terrorists is a good place to start. Anthony Romero, their exec director, mounted media and legal campaigns against the PATRIOT Act, and grabbed headlines for throwing the ACLU’s clout behind Sami Al-Arian, the University of South Florida professor charged with organizing on behalf of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group. Sound familiar? Lynne Stewart was convicted of aiding and abetting terrorists Sami Al-Arian, and the Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel Rachman in February. The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts upheld Stewart’s position and in a February 17, 2005 statement delivered a scathing reprimand to the administration. “The ACLU of Massachusetts believes that the prosecution of Lynne Stewart is a chilling testament to what is being done to individual rights and to the rule of law itself in the name of “fighting terrorism”.
Another example is–this past March, Michael Posner, Exec Director of “Human Rights First”, worked in tandem with the ACLU, and filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing alleged reports of torture in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Refusing to use the terrorist watch list for hiring employees is another. One of the problems for the ACLU on that score is that they actually signed an agreement to use the watch lists in order to obtain nearly $500,000 from the Combined Federal Campaign, as required by the USA PATRIOT Act. They actually should have lost their funding for that one….but they screamed “blacklist”…
According to the U.S. State Department, the government is seeking a “blacklist” on those who have committed or threatened to commit the following actions: “hijacking or sabotage of an aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance; hostage taking; a violent attack on an internationally protected person; assassination; or the use of any biological agent, chemical agent, nuclear weapon or device, or explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.”
That’s pretty clear to me, but apparently they’re defending the rights of the people who would blow us up, so it’s ok, right?
Challenging no fly lists is another. Need I go on? If you put that all together, it’s a pretty incredible picture of aiding and abetting the enemy…not to mention …in a time of war.
July 24th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
I am not defending the actions of the ACLU. I am simply stating that they do not rise to the level of treason. Your arguments from an intellectional viewpoint are weak and your cited sources are clearly biased and subject.
The U.S. government is providing Saddam Hussein legal counsel to defend himself against crimes against humanity. Following your logic the government would be aiding and abbetting the enemy.
Your position is vituperative in nature and fails to not only reach the legal standard of treason but a more general common sense standard as well.
To suggest that the ACLU supports terrorism is ridiculous. I am quite certain that you do not believe this. Their belief is that personal freedoms must be protected regardless of the consequences and risks presented in todays volatile world. While most of america does not agree with their methods and/or rigidness in thier opinion; they also, and correctly, do not believe them to be the traitors you claim them to be.
If you want to put yourself out there as a conservative thinker, I suggest you start thinking your arguments thru. Americans are a smart lot and they can smell the ******** your shoveling.
I believe you are smart enough to put uup a better argument than calling people traitors and posting pictures of americans with guns to their heads. If your goal is to preach to the choir, then by all means, continue on with your rhetoric. If on the other hand you actually want to change some minds, you’ve got some work to do.
July 24th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
I am not defending the actions of the ACLU. I am simply stating that they do not rise to the level of treason. Your arguments from an intellectional viewpoint are weak and your cited sources are clearly biased and subject.
The U.S. government is providing Saddam Hussein legal counsel to defend himself against crimes against humanity. Following your logic the government would be aiding and abbetting the enemy.
Your position is vituperative in nature and fails to not only reach the legal standard of treason but a more general common sense standard as well.
To suggest that the ACLU supports terrorism is ridiculous. I am quite certain that you do not believe this. Their belief is that personal freedoms must be protected regardless of the consequences and risks presented in todays volatile world. While most of america does not agree with their methods and/or rigidness in thier opinion; they also, and correctly, do not believe them to be the traitors you claim them to be.
If you want to put yourself out there as a conservative thinker, I suggest you start thinking your arguments thru. Americans are a smart lot and they can smell the ******** your shoveling.
I believe you are smart enough to put uup a better argument than calling people traitors and posting pictures of americans with guns to their heads. If your goal is to preach to the choir, then by all means, continue on with your rhetoric. If on the other hand you actually want to change some minds, you’ve got some work to do.
July 25th, 2005 at 12:29 am
Did any of you guys see that picture of those two Iranian homosexuals being hanged recently.if you didn’t blame the msm for that.I find it strange that these fake groups like Amnesty,Human Rights Watch,or any other of these criminal posers say a damn thing about what took place,but yet these nitwits will align themselves with people that will kill them just as look at them.
July 25th, 2005 at 4:34 am
The US Government is not giving Saddam counsel. It was -last I knew- an internaional team, including the daughter of Moammar Gadaffi–her name is Aicha and she’s a jet-setting babe. Curtis Doebbler and Ramsey Clark are the two american lawyers, but they’re not provided to Saddam by the US Government. They’re being paid, in fact, by Saddam’s wife who’s in Jordan. Saddam’s legal team includes 1,500 volunteers and at least 22 lead lawyers who come from several countries, including the United States, France, Jordan, Iraq and Libya. It’s a jordanian-based multinational defense team consisting of all leftists and the progeny of despots and so on.
I find it humorous that you dismiss the sources but can’t refute the facts presented, but that’s typical of leftists…facts don’t seem to phase you at all,
Ramsey Clark has ties to International ANSWER and International Action Center, and the World Worker’s Party. I have a piece up here called “Ramsey Clark: Still Saddam’s Sock Puppet”
It’s pretty apparent to me that you’re in denial and seriously should put partisan politics aside and consider the facts presented rather than dismiss them merely because of the “sources” that are “subject”. Subject to what? Are you capable of putting together an entire sentence?
July 25th, 2005 at 9:26 am
It’s probably a waste of time to try and talk sense to Rob, but…Rob, is there anything that, at least in your mind, DOES “rise to the level of treason?”
July 25th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Yes,
Outing a CIA operative is treasonous. In fact there is a law written to that effect.
July 25th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
“Rob, first you have no contact info, so that means that A) I have nowhere to see what you write, or if you do, and B) You are a coward.”
And for the record, not that it should matter, I wore the uniform of a commissioned officer in our armed forces. I know the UCMJ, and I know the definition of treason.
Yeah, right Rob — any Leftwing Idiot can make a blanket statement like that!
I’m a Former UNITED STATES MARINE — but, you don’t state what branch of the military you allegedly served in; what your alleged rank was; what alleged unit you were assigned to; nor your alleged MOS … so, how about coming clean with answers — otherwise, you’re no better than your little rack-buddy, John “HANOI FONDA” Skerry!
I’ll go head-to head with you on the Treason under the UCMJ … quote me the exact Chapter; Subchapter; and Article that covers this — and, I’ll come back and hit you in the *** with the EXACT STATEMENT your little rack-buddy, John “HANOI FONDA” Skerry stated in front of Congress, which had there been any honest ones’ on that panel (never has been and never will be any honest Congress members!) they would have filed immediate charges on him.
Lastly — what U.S. Constituition Amendment did Congress disobey and not honor by putting your little rack-buddy, John “HANOI FONDA” Skerry in as the Mass. Senator?
July 25th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
No, that’s an oversimplification. Actually the law is–you need to be a covert operative having worked overseas some time over the last 6 years. That leaves desk hockey Plame out of it. She hasn’t been anywhere near covert for quite some time…and you can see by all the photographs of her in Vanity Fair that she’s perfectly willing to be photographed. heh. And didn’t Wilson himself “out” her in his book? She was “outed” long before Wilson claims the whitehouse did it…on the Washington cocktail circuit. Nobody was claiming her identity was top secret.
July 25th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Hi Cao,
I’ve got to ask you to take down that “Treason Hunters” image. That is my copyrighted artwork. Thanks. Feel free to contact me off-blog if you want to discuss.
-Mark Fiore
July 25th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
That’s fine, it’s down. I will email you to see if you’re who you say you are. Too many leftists have lied and threatened me about things like this when they weren’t who they represented themselves to be.
July 25th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Its too bad that George W Bush wouldn’t have Karl Roved hanged for his treason, but the Radical Right is selective on what they see as treason. Its too bad that Radical Right blindness is a disease, not treason.
July 25th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Cao, my father once told me two wrongs dont make a right. Aside from whether or not the “law” was broken do you think what Karl Rove did was right? Would you have done the same thing if you were in his position? Have you ever heard of the SF312 Classified Information Disclosure Agreement?
heres a link:
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard_form_312.pdf
Refer yourself to Qustion 19 under the Q&A
And SSGT Yathehy, Branch: US Army Rank: CPT/0-3 MOS: 13A Field Artillery (prior enlisted: 13B Infantry, but that was in the Illinois National Guard while in college. Was an E-5 before I earned my commission)
Does that make my opinion more valid? I think not.
Finally, get of the John Kerry bashing!! He Lost the election, game over. You are purposefully deflecting the issues and trying to justify the actions of this administration by poking at John Kerrys misgivings.
Any Marine, Soldier and Sailor knows you don’t talk about operations.
Remember something called OPSEC (Operational Security) or doesn’t the Marine Corps teach that anymore?
Stop defending Karl Rove just because he is a Republican!!! If one of your marines talked to the press any good NCO would have his *** locked up at parade rest and cleaning the ******* for the next month. Regardless of whether a “law” was broken.
Am I wrong?
July 25th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
sorry, the link changed
Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?
Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.
Here is the right link:
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/standard-form-312.pdf
July 25th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Rob — just as I thought; you can’t answer me correctly, because you don’t know the UCMJ!
I wasn’t talking about any OPERATIONS was I?:roll:
Of course, the Corps and all Branches teach OPSEC — what the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
You wouldn’t know TREASON if it bit you in the ***!
July 25th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Don’t pay any attention to Mark Fiore - he’s just a California “Car-Tooney” and he doesn’t have any Copyright authority on his images.
I’ve got news for Markie-Boy … I’ve downloaded hundreds of his images over the past few years, and have forwarded them to hundreds of Webmasters all over the World, for them to use on websites and newsletters, and there’s not a damn thing he can do about it!
July 25th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
That’s quite honorable of you SSGT Yatahey. Stealing someones work and them telling him there is “not a damn thing he can do about it”
That comment alone indicates your charachter. One most Marines would find Shameful
My point was that while Karl Rove may not have broken a law (still to be deterimined) he is clearly in violation of the SF312 he signed. But then again you think it is ok to steal a persons copyrighted works so clearly you employ a selective code of ethics.
And as much as you want to spin it the CIA was the one who initiated the investigation. I suppose they are now liberal leftist’s and traitors because the investigation led them to the White House.
Why would the CIA initiate an investigation if they felt that no crime was committed?
Even you should be able to answer that question. I doubt however, you will.
The fact is you are out of your league here Sarge. Don’t embarrass the Corp any longer with your infantile intellect and suspect ethics.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Robbie-BOY…
Thank you Robbie for the compliment!:lol:
Speaking of character, you have none as you still don’t have the answers to my two simple questions — because you don’t know, and can’t admit it … so, why should I huble myself and answer your rhetorical Left-Winger question?
I don’t embarrass the Corps — they trained me too well; unlike that DOG CAMP you “allegedly” attended … it was probably more like you attended ROTC because the Regular DOG POUND didn’t want you.
July 25th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
I dont have charachter because “I don’t know the answers to your questions” whereas You have charachter but promote the theft of copyright material and someone elses work?
And if failing to answers someones questions amounts to a lack of charachter you in turn have failed to answer my questions.
Which goes back to my post several responses ago. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Stop talking about the guy who lost the White House and start talking about the guy IN the white house.
Golly, You are just makung this too easy. I am started to get bored with the lack of intellectual challenge being brought forward.
July 25th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
Moron - his images are NOT copyrighted; but, being a DOG, I can see why that slipped by you so easily since your brain cell can’t comprehend how to do a simple search on his name.
I don’t/won’t need to answer your questions, you 6-eyed; lizard-lipped weasel.
You keep typing the same phrase over and over…“Two wrongs don’t make a right” — is that the only intelligent thing you can say?
I’m glad you’re getting bored, Sweetheart — you’re a very boring advesary.
July 26th, 2005 at 12:10 am
He said and I quote “That is my copyrighted artwork” I also suppose you have a law degree and specialize in Patent and Copyright law.
I have won every argument thus far and made you to look the fool.
You can always tell the loser because instead of attacking the issue they attack the debater. I win, You Lose.
Thanks to reckless people like you posting your nonsense all over the internet there is a good chance that pendulum will swing the other way and a Hillary Clinton will be elected to office. I will blame the likes of you for that. Your mindless rhetoric is alienting moderate republicans and slowly but surely destroying the conservative agenda. Anyone who dares question your narrow viewpoints is labeled treasonous and a communist. You see no middle ground, but worse you see no reason to look inward and ask tough questions.
Instead of taking the moral high ground you have chosen to play in the mud just like the democrats who sopported Bill Clinton despite his lies and lack of truthfulness. You are either a partisan who could care less about the truth or a moron who is unable to form an opinion for himself. You are the problem in this country. Just another soldier in the armies of the left and right who fight to defend their leaders instead of the principles of this nation.
Shame on you.
Good Bye.
July 26th, 2005 at 7:35 am
“That is my copyrighted artwork”. I also suppose you have a law degree and specialize in Patent and Copyright law.
Anyone can “claim” an image has a copyright; but, until there’s a “watermark” on it, it’s still public domain … yes; I do have an extensive background in Law, including the Internet.
No; I didn’t vote for Billy-Bob-Heading Klinton, nor will I ever vote for any Democrapper.
Game over … try to have a nice week.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Rob asks, “Am I wrong?”
Of course, he doesn’t listen to the answers…
re: Rove—read the law, Rob. Even IF Rove had known she was once “covert” (though under extremely light cover), she had not been covert for six years 9according to the definition in the relevant law) which placed her outside the protections of that law.
Blow yer smoke in another direction, would ya?
UCMJ? What, TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER X only applies to military. You want to make the argument that only military can commit treason? No, cos then “Rob” makes unsupportable assertions that Karl Rove committed treason. Silly puppy.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381
Aid and comfort “to her enemies” fits just about 90% of the behavior of the (NON-democratic) Democratic Party (although arguments can be made, I suppose, that the inept performance of The Stupid Party in countering such behavior could also constitute “aid and comfort” to America’s enemies… *sigh*)
Y’all, he’s just trolling. The more we poke that tarbaby, the more time is wasted on an inconsequential gnat.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
Rob,
You sure don’t remind me of any of the officers I grew up around.
Semper Fi, SSgt.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
It’s amazing to me. When you consider how many democrats have jumped the democratic gravy train because of George Soros and the democratic socialists of America…many of whom are senators right now…and Rob says “stop defending Rove because he’s a republican”.
I’m sorry, Rob, but it has to do with what’s being said here, not whether or not Rove’s a republican…unless you’re a democrat, of course, and your sources are the democratic underground or Salon, or KOS or any of those rags that spread socialist propaganda. Jeff Gannon wrote a very interesting piece about all of this….
The Rove allegations were already unravelling in 2003 when NYT author Nicholas Kristoff explained that Plame had abandoned her “covert” status a full nine years before.
He further explains:
The question should be why aren’t the lawyers invoking the “no laws broken defense”?
NRO’s Rich Lowry responds to that question:
The Miller-Cooper defense hasn’t made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration’s “crime of the century” wasn’t really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.
“It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it,” says Lowry.
“That’s the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid.”
July 27th, 2005 at 8:23 am
[…] og is also running a very interesting competition on how to handle acts of treason – full post here – Until August 5th they are requesting submission on how treason should […]
July 27th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Treason? You mean like selling weapons to Iranian Hostage takers to fund an uncivil war is South America?
Or, how about weaseling your way into the Air National guard to avoid fighting for your country? That wouldn’t work now would it? The guard and reserve are being pulled into Iraq because it is cheaper (no family healthcare coverage etc).
I’m not a democrat. But, I will most likely never be Republican again… Too many myopic hypocrits.
July 27th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
You mean selling weapons to one side in a Middle Eastern war to support pro-Democracy forces in Central America?
Or, the use of obscure Naval regs to avoid serving a complete tour of duty?
You and no one else has been able to prove Bush “weasled out” of anything. It is really sad you still believe that ****.
If you are going to accuse people of being myopic, you might want to refrain from appearing so yourself.
July 27th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Wait, do you remember there were over 300 hostages in Iran? I remember because I was in the Army and on pretty much 24/7 alert. Then suddenly Reagan becomes Prez and the hostages are freed. I remember how proud I felt at that time because Carter was making us feel weak. Then to find out later the hostages were freed in some sort of deal between our administration and the Government that was supporting the hostage takers?
July 27th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
The fact is it seems more and more these days the people who are so quick to send our boys and girls to war have themselves had little to do with serving in conflict themselves (Bill Clinton included).
I stand corrected, it was Central America. Pro democracy? is that what they called it?
July 27th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Steve - you’re apparently a young man; an angry young man, at that because you were called by your country to go serve … well; BOOHOO!!!
Our President didn’t “weasel into” the Nat’l. Guard to avoid fighting … the Regular Military has, and always will have, sufficient personnel for that purpose — you should already know what the purpose of the National Guard is, and always will be.
What does your political affiliation have to do with anything involving war and having troops serve our beloved country?
No one, since this country was founded, has ever been “so quick to send our boys and girls to war” … in fact, we’re actually a peace-loving nation who don’t relish war.
But, since this country was founded, we’ve always found ourselves in some sort of conflict, and no matter how much you jump up-and-down screaming, pointing your finger at the President, it will never change … war has always been, and always will be, a seemingly “solution” to when nations of peoples can’t get along; much less have the common sense and intelligence by resolving differences using other methods.
I didn’t cherish the thought of going to Viet-Nam the first time; but, after thinking about YOUR FREEDOMS AND THAT OF OTHERS, I unselfishly VOLUNTEERED FOR A 2ND TOUR and have never whined that, it was the “President’s Fault”.
So, get a pair; stand up for America’s Rights and Freedoms; and stop your cry-baby whining … or, simply pack your bags and get your *** out of America — go live in one of those foreign countries, and write us later, telling us how wonderful your new life is!
July 27th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Isn’t Rove a Traitor in the classic sense of the word? He’s jeopardizing the safety of our honest men and women in the CIA! Prison seems appropriate, no matter who the culprit is, Democrat or Republican who puts our agents’ lives in danger! Think U.S. v. Rove.
July 27th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Have you read any of this discussion, moonbat? Geez. I’m just going to start banning you people, you’re complete and total trolls and not only that, IDIOTS.
July 27th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
What gives you the right to question my patriotism SSGT? My comment had to do with this lynch mob hunting a traitor.
Is this what your argument is?… Anytime someone disagrees with you you challenge their patriotism and integrity? I served 8 years in the US Army and didn’t whine a bit.
Having a bigger flag doesn’t make you more of a patriot. The same way having the most xmas decorations doesn’t make you more of a christian.
July 27th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
You whine a lot and I’m getting sick of it. Stephen Pearcy was a cop at one point, I guess…but he believes in getting rid of the cops and hiring more teachers.
Don’t use that “I served” **** like John Kerry, ok? It doesn’t go over very well here.
July 27th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
Way to go Steve - you served 8 yrs … are you “reporting for doody”?
July 27th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
GOOD!…you wouldn’t make even a half-assed decent Republican, anyway!
By the way… it was 50 to 55 hostages for 444 days. Guess you suffer from the same ‘memory-searing’ that Kerry suffers .
Rob… You are just plum moronic, anyway you slice it! Learn the history of this Country and NOT the ‘revised History’ that they have obviously pumped your head full of.
Cao…
GREAT to be back!
July 27th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
Missed you a lot, lobo. We’re going to get hit with a shitstorm from these damned Progressives so hold on tight. They’re accusing me of “inciting violence” against Pearcy with that picture of him crudely pasted into a terrorist hostage picture. Actually I find it poetic. He’s pulling for the terrorists, but the terrorists would kill him just like they did Nick Berg…Nick’s father marches with International Answer. You notice how that saved Nick’s life? heh. Nick was still an infidel in their minds…nothing can change that…Nick was a jew. But he didn’t die because he was an American…he died because he was not a muslim.
I don’t think Pearcy is a muslim, is he? Or his little mousie wife?
I don’t see that my picture is any different than the vitriole of Ward Churchill’s; equating 9/11 victims to Nazis….or his essay from 2002—where he wrote of the “gallant sacrifices” of the “combat teams” that killed almost 3,000 Americans (on 9/11 in NYC).
If these guys can hang a soldier in effigy, I can make a visual representation of what I think of his antics. It’s called “artistic expression”. I know they can’t bend their minds around it when they don’t agree with it, but that’s tough.
July 27th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Ward Churchill made a fool out of himself. I support the right of Mr. Pearcy to do the same. He doesn’t represent me or anything I would do. But, I trust the American people enough to decide for themselve’s and I don’t think we need to legislate bad taste.
July 27th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
Lobo — nice to see you here again!!!
It’s your Blog, Cao - if the left-wing; fascist; Communist-lovers support the 11-eyed; lizard-lipped; weasel Stephen Pearcy … I’d just ban them from here, so they can go running to Little Stevie Wonder and his Churchill crowd.
July 27th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
Revisionist History? Send me a recomendation of a biography of George Washington that you approve of. I will read it and will illustrate from the text of that book several quotes that will show the type of leader washington was and how he would have avoided the partisanship hatred you are fostering.
A study of the difference’s in politics between jefferson and hamilton; and how George Washington sincerely and honestly tried to see both points of view is just one of many examples throughout his life that made him a great leader. Unlike you he was’nt interested in “winning” the argument. George was most concerned in doing the right thing. He was able to see validity on both sides of the political landscape.
And comic books dont count.
Oh if your going to reccomend a book I suggest you have actually read it.
July 27th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
How is it again that political dissent aids terrorists?
July 27th, 2005 at 11:56 pm
Wow, such hate! I scanned the messages until I came to this post by some staff sargeant and realized this place tain’t for me:
I didn’t cherish the thought of going to Viet-Nam the first time; but, after thinking about YOUR FREEDOMS AND THAT OF OTHERS, I unselfishly VOLUNTEERED FOR A 2ND TOUR and have never whined that, it was the “President’s Fault”.
**** anyone who thought he was fighting for anyones freedom in ‘Nam inhaled a little too much Agent Orange!
July 28th, 2005 at 12:06 am
I’ll say that was a little harsh da’troll. While I don’t agree with SSGt Politics I respect the fact he served and volunteerd to go back for a second tour.
July 28th, 2005 at 12:31 am
Bite me da’ troll:twisted:
I don’t care if anyone agrees with my “politics” — opinions are just like ********; everybody has one.
July 28th, 2005 at 12:47 am
and just like you *******, your basis of all your opinions is ****
July 28th, 2005 at 1:25 am
Rob…
Unlike you he was’nt interested in “winning” the argument.
I’m not here to win an argument. I’m here to educate the ignorant. Ignorance can be corrected, stupid is forever.
If you are here to learn something…stick around, if you are here to demonstrate how stupid you are, go somewhere else.(my personal opinion…this is not my site)
I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt but from what I have read in your postings so far, you are making it difficult right off.
As for your claim of having a commission. I have seen absolutely no evidence in your conduct or demeanor that would support that claim…so if you are…start acting like an Officer!
July 28th, 2005 at 4:13 am
Hatred is a matter of perspective. What kind of person cheers for the terrorists instead of our soldiers? What kind of person says, particularly after 9/11 and the bombings in London and Egypt and all the other bombings, murders and beheadings “there is no terrorist threat”?
As far as “political dissent” aiding terrorists, just look at Code Pink. They gave $600,000 to the terrorists in Fallujah. I don’t know how you could “aid” the terrorists any more than that…I mean you people are pretty much cowards, so all you do is cheer behind the sidelines, anyway. But…if you look at history, which is something you folks also seem to ignore pretty completely, Vietnam Vets against the War were using the communist talking points to win the war, and the communists actually gave the media at home and the anti-war effort at home the credit for their “winning”. A bloodbath ensued…as millions of Vietnamese were murdered by the communists afterwards.
The is a correlation with Iraq if you can put together a couple of coherent thoughts. I’m determined not to allow that to happen again and to help raise peoples’ awareness as to what the anti-war people represent, their ties to the WWP, International ANSWER, IAC, etc..
Lobo, you and I pretty much sing out of the same hymnbook, lol
If you consider that just some of these sickening sentiments actually bleed through to rational people…the hope is that American sentiment will change and the public will stop backing the war in Iraq, therefore, we’ll pull out before the job is done and the Baathists will be able to move back in just like the commies did in Vietnam. I don’t think it can be any more clear than this. It’s a complete REPLAY of the Anti-war movement from the days of Vietnam. If you can’t see how this emboldens our enemies, causes more deaths to our soldiers and Iraqi civilians, and if you don’t know that the jihadis are perfectly aware of this and are actually talking about it and celebrating it on the jihadi message boards, you’re a complete idiot, IMO.
July 28th, 2005 at 4:18 am
The antiwar movement’s attack on virtually any use of U.S. power as sinister and irrational, as well as doomed to failure (a failure the antiwar movement has often openly wished for), continues even now into the post 9/11 period. In the midst of the invasion of Iraq, British military historian Correlli Barnett made wildly off-base statements not only against the Iraq war, in which he virtually expressed the desire for an American defeat, but against the Cold War as well. In the April 3, 2003 edition of the Daily Mail, the mouthpiece of Britain’s antiwar movement Barnett prophesied that the U.S.-led war to topple the Saddam Hussein regime had not “reached the end of the beginning”; that the Iraqi people were “rallying behind Saddam”; and that America would be humbled before the gates of Baghdad. Of course, within a few days of these dire predictions Baghdad had fallen to the victorious U.S. forces. Almost as though seeking succor for his disappointment over the results in Iraq, Barnett turned to another bad U.S. war, indeed the Mother of All Bad U.S. Wars. Writing in the May 19, 2003 issue of The American Conservative, he gave the following account of President Johnson’s decision to send American forces into Vietnam:
Why did he do it? Vietnam had no oil fields, industries, or key raw materials—only rice fields. The answer lies in America’s central motivation in waging the Cold War: ideological hatred of Communism…. American policy-makers did not regard the Soviet Union as simply a rival power block, but an evil empire threatening the free world. Such righteousness justified the global commitments and military adventure. [Italics added.]
In brief, America had no good reason to fear Communism or to try to protect our South Vietnamese allies from being taken over by Communist dictatorship. Not only the Vietnam war, but the entire Cold War was unnecessary, and was brought about solely by America’s irrational “hatred.”
That’s interesting, isn’t it? If we were such an “evil imperialistic” force in the world, then why are Germany and France, who we freed from the Nazis, not an American power? C’mon. This stuff just doesn’t make sense when you look at it. Still, the leftists lament the deaths of terrorists even when there is no wrongdoing…and complain about American soldiers putting a thong on a terrorist’s head at Gitmo as a “crime against humanity”.
What we see here is the standard leftist put-down of all non-leftist or conservative positions—namely that when conservatives are addressing some external threat to society, the threat, according to the left, doesn’t really exist but is rather the result some mental sickness or political calculation on the part of the conservatives. If conservatives take a stand against Communism, it is not because of anything wrong with Communism, it’s because conservatives are emotionally crippled people who need an enemy. If conservatives think that Clinton is corrupting and defiling America, it’s not because of anything Clinton has done, but because of an unreasoning hatred (fed by a twisted sexual Puritanism) that they bear against Clinton. If conservatives are leery of the racial-oppression claims of the organized black movement in this country, it is not because they believe the black complaints to be false and destructive, but because, as Clinton himself repeatedly put it, whites have a sick need to “look down” on blacks. If conservatives are concerned about mass immigration, it is not because they are concerned about the harm immigration is causing to our society, but because they have an irrational “fear of those who are different.” And, finally, if President Bush is waging a war against Islamic terrorists, it is not because he seeks to protect America from real harm, but because he seeks political gain through the manipulation of the public’s fears. After all, as the Democratic Party’s favorite filmmaker Michael Moore says, “There is no terrorist threat.”
Which, of course, is a bunch of total an utter hooey to a rational person. The Progressive Left has been wrong on every single conflict we’ve ever been engaged in, and seem too stupid to realize even the most clear and basic facts…the definition of insanity is ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’.
July 28th, 2005 at 8:00 am
Comment by Rob … I respect the fact he served and volunteerd to go back for a second tour … and just like you *******, your basis of all your opinions is ****.
Yep; you sound just like the perfect Army “Occifer” material — talk out of both sides of your mouth and still say nothing.:grin:
Comment by Cao … I don’t think it can be any more clear than this. It’s a complete REPLAY of the Anti-war movement from the days of Vietnam.
That just about sums it up, and is how we Vets see it too!
July 28th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Teenage Mutant Ninja Knight
Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … It’s Stop the ACLU Thursday!
July 28th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Oh Sarge, let me clarify it terms that your leatherneck *** can understand.
I respect the fact you served. I think service people are brave, and honestly love their country. I know I do. From reading your comments I think that despite your bravery and professed love of out nation you seem, to put it bluntly, rather stupid.
At the rank of SSgt you probably never led more than a squad. And at most a platoon. As an “occifer” you not only have the responsibility of your troops but the rquirement to accomplish the mission.
Get off the “talking out both sides of your mouth” officers dont know **** ****. It’s tired.
Still waiting on that book reccomendation. Must be having a tough time finding one that isnt revisionist:grin:
July 28th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Hey Rob? You are a coward.
No link to a blog of your own?
You are a complete chickenshit.
Wanna prove me wrong?
Call me after noon PST and 1-888-972-3461
July 28th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
wheres your blog then jackass!
July 28th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Poor little Robbie - did your Mommy let you stay home today and play on the ‘puter?:mrgreen:
No matter how you slice it and dice it, I’m far from being as ignorant as you — but, what else can we expect from an ARMY DOGFACE who didn’t have what it takes to be a U.S. MARINE?
Must’ve been a terrible disappointment to Mommy and Daddy — but, it sure was a blessing for the Corps!:lol:
Actually, Sweetheart, I served several yrs as a MARINE DRILL INSTRUCTOR — a position that requires alot of knowledge; common sense; leadership; etc; … things that an ARMY DOGFACE OCCIFER couldn’t possibly grasp; much less be taught.
You still haven’t answered my original two questions, fish-eyed maggot … but, with your typical left-winger rantings as usual, we certainly should not hold our breath waiting on your answers, should we?:roll:
Have a nice day — in spite of yourself.
July 28th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Are most of the people who post here Christian? I’m having a hard time believing that they are because so many of these comments seem decidedly un-Christian. The language being used would make Jesus shudder.
I would like to point out that this conversation started because of those gruesome pictures of guns pointed at a person’s head. When people were going to stone a harlot in the Bible, Jesus stopped them. I don’t think he liked violence very much, and if he were around today, I find it hard to believe that he would sit by and watch anyone murder Stephen Pearcy or any other accused traitor. Could you really put a gun to someone’s head and splatter brains against the wall if Jesus were in the room watching you? There is nothing in the account of Jesus’ life in the New Testament that would indicate that he is the type of person who would like that sort of thing.
Where does all this bloodlust come from? Why are some of you so interested in killing and torturing other people? I thought that the terrorists we are fighting were the ones who were interested in such bloodshed. I really hope that we aren’t becoming like them–eager to see death and destruction come upon anyone with whom we don’t agree.
Well, I guess that’s all I have to say. Oh, one more thing: to the sSgt guy–Please stop calling people multiple-eyed lizard-lipped whatevers. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s really more funny than it is insulting and it makes you sound childish, which in turn makes your ideas and arguments sound childish. Try elucidating your viewpoints in a succinct and well-worded message that expresses your views clearly and avoids unnecessary name-calling. If you channel the anger you feel into a really good logical message, maybe you will have better luck persuading people (and you could use the time that it took you to come up with a good insult to think of a good argument).
Thanks, and God Bless,
Tate
July 28th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
“No, that’s an oversimplification. “Actually the law is–you need to be a covert operative having worked overseas some time over the last 6 years. That leaves desk hockey Plame out of it. ”
Less than a week before her outing in the Novak column, a State Department memo listed her role with the CIA as “SECRET.”
That means a week before the column appeared, she was not a desk jocky and was an undercover op.
That’s why the CIA demanded the criminal investigation that is now underway.
“Desk jockey” is part of the actual RNC talking point hand out. That hand out is pretty well published all over the net. But I’m sure Cao gets her copies faxed from South Capitol Street.
July 28th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
WAIT!! I got this one Kender and SSgt!!!Don’t you fret!
Hey Tate, where’s your website!! You can’t say anything here unless you have a website we call all troll!! Unless you are as much of lame asses as us who sit around and play politics (instead of really doing something) you’re not allowed to comment!! You liberal Bible loving scum!
There, did I sound just like you guys? Ignorant and inept?
Oh, SSgt. you should get off of your Marine show boat. I am sure there are quite a few Army “Occifers” would could kick your scrawny died up ***. Hmm, I bet Cao’s son (who is an Army “Occifer” if I am not mistaken) could whoop up on you too, as could a great deal of Rangers and Special Forces or even regular Army Infantry soldiers. Hell, lets just go ahead and throw in some Army admin soldiers too while we’re at it.
Honestly, most of the people who comment on this site are morons, but I at least have a tid bit of respect for them, but you take the cake.
Ok, go ahead; start calling for me names again. If it wasn’t for calling people names on the internet, how would you affirm your status as a man?
July 28th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Comment by Tate — Please stop calling people multiple-eyed lizard-lipped whatevers. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Of course it doesn’t make sense to you; one would have to be a former Marine to understand those comments.
LOL @ Chris — judging from that pic of you on your Blog, with that choker and cute little ballcap, you wouldn’t have a chance … but, neither would some of the Army wusses I’ve seen.
Stick to your Idaho Tater-tots … they fit you well.:grin:
July 28th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
Umm… SSgt, last time you tried hurting my feelings you made a comment about my picture, I am glad you are getting more original as the days pass. Hey! You’re making “progress”, does that mean I can call you a “Progressive” now?!
Didn’t say I could whoop up on you, I was in the Air Defense Artillery, we just played on computers a lot. In fact do you know what my MOS was? K, get this, I laughed at it too when I first saw it; Air Defense Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence Tactical Operations Center Enhanced Operator/Maintainer, otherwise known as an Early Warning Systems Operator, or shortened once again; 14J.
Does that my sacrifice any less than yours? Nupe, you see, with out support (BTW, my job is Combat Arms), yep, that’s the cooks, the admins, the nurses, the communication guys, you wouldn’t have a hope in the world in battle.
Surly a vet as yourself knows that the military is a dynamic machine, made up of many, many gears. However all the gears in the machine are needed to have a successful machine, no one gear is more important than the others. But then again this type of adaptive thinking would require a bit of logic.
So then it begs the question? Were you braver than me? Or was I just smarter than you?
July 28th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
I guess as a Drill Instructor you failed to read the chapter on rank. Last I remember 0-3 was about 6 pay-grades above E-6. And a Commisioned “occifer” in the Army still requires the military courtesy you would give to a Marine Corps Officer. You don’t have to respect me, but, you dishonor youself and the Marine Corp by dishonoring the office I held.
On another note:
The former CIA Spokesman provided the following testimony before the Grand Jury in the Valerie Plame Case:
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson’s wife had not authorized the mission
and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak’s call, he checked Plame’s status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame’s name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to “asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause ‘difficulties’ if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson’s wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used
her name.”
Harlow was also involved in the larger internal administration battle over who would be held responsible for Bush using the disputed charge about the Iraq-Niger connection as part of the war argument. Based on the questions they have been asked, people involved in the case believe that Fitzgerald looked into this bureaucratic fight because the effort to discredit Wilson
was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy.
Looks like your going to have to put a photo of Robert Novak up there now. Sounds to me like he is most definately a traitor.
Still no bookk reccomendation:razz:
July 28th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
“A study of Washington as a man and a military leader shows that on the few occasions were he was forced to discipline soldiers he did so with great hesitation and without any of the zeal that your comments indicate.”
Washington first documented his personal aversion to profanity in the military. In 1756, during the French and Indian War as a young colonel commanding Virginian forces during that conflict, Washington told his superior, Lt. Gov. Robert Dinwiddie:
[T]his I am certain of, and can call my conscience and what, I suppose, will still be a more demonstrable proof in the eyes of the world, my orders, to witness how much I have–both by threats and persuasive means–endeavored to discountenance gaming, drinking, swearing, and irregularities of every other kind; while I have, on the other hand, practiced every artifice to inspire a laudable emulation in the officers for the service of their country and to encourage the soldiers in the unerring exercise of their duty. 2
Several weeks later, Washington issued the following order to his troops:
Colonel Washington has observed that the men of his regiment are very profane and reprobate. He takes this opportunity to inform them of his great displeasure at such practices and assures them that if they do not leave them off, they shall be severely punished. The officers are desired, if they hear any man swear or make use of an oath or execration, to order the offender twenty-five lashes immediately, without court-martial. For the second offense, he will be more severely punished.3
Washington’s firm opposition to profanity in the military never wavered, as evidenced by military orders he issued on several occasions throughout the American Revolution. For example:
The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for the government of the army which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness; and in the like manner requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on Divine Service to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense. 4 GENERAL ORDERS, CAMBRIDGE, JULY 4, 1775
The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing (a vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example as well as influence, endeavor to check it, and that both they and the men will reflect that we can have little hopes of the blessing of heaven on our arms if we insult it by our impiety and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense and character detests and despises it. 5 GENERAL ORDERS, NEW YORK, AUGUST 3, 1776
It is much to be lamented that the foolish and scandalous practice of profane swearing is exceedingly prevalent in the American Army. Officers of every rank are bound to discourage it, first by their example, and then by punishing offenders. As a mean to abolish this and every other species of immorality, Brigadiers are enjoined to take effectual care to have Divine Service duly performed in their respective brigades. 6 GENERAL ORDERS, MIDDLEBROOK, MAY 31, 1777
Purity of morals being the only sure foundation of public happiness in any country, and highly conducive to order, subordination, and success in an army, it will be well worthy the emulation of officers of every rank and class to encourage it both by the influence of example and the penalties of authority. It is painful to see many shameful instances of riot and licentiousness among us; the wanton practice of swearing has risen to a most disgusting height. A regard to decency should conspire with a sense of morality to banish a vice productive of neither advantage of pleasure. 7 GENERAL ORDERS, FREDERICKSBURG, OCTOBER 21, 1778
There is a clear and consistent message throughout his orders: General Washington did not tolerate the practice of swearing in the military. It is therefore reasonable to assume that he would have been a leader in propagating that which he so sternly opposed? Hardly.
Contrary to your assertions, I see no hesitation or lack of zeal that you stated above!
This pertained to ‘profanity’. 25 lashes WITHOUT Court-martial. Should we go on to ‘treason’?
July 28th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Good Lobo,
Lets go on. The more you read the smarter you’ll get. As you know there is a difference in establishing discipline and enjoying the execution of such. My original point is that he did not relish in the propspect of implementing discipline.
Still no book:grin:
July 28th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Randy, you were banned…I find it interesting that somehow you got under the wire. I’m going to have to implement commenting for registered users only, which will leave you OUT,
Rob, a state department memo said “secret”? Does that mean some kind of deodorant or what? What does “secret” mean exactly? It certainly couldn’t have meant “covert”, lol. She was betrayed to the Russians by Aldrich Ames in the early 1990s, and relegated to a desk job shortly tbereafter. Her days of “covert” operations were long gone by 1997.
A french communist’s wife came over here talking that same **** about Christianity, telling me to hold my lamp under a bushel–contrary to what the scripture says, but…what do you expect from a commie, “Tate”, :roll:?
Oh do go on, Lobo. I absolutely LOVE it when I hear Washington’s own words with regard to civility, and behavior in public life…especially directing the soldiers in his command.
I don’t know what Rob is talking about as far as a ‘book’ reference. Rob ought to pick one up, it would be to his credit if he shut up and started reading,
That image with Pearcy in it is not much different than what Ward Churchill has said is it? But now he cries and moans that he’s “afraid for his life”. BAH. Maybe they’d feel better and it would be acceptable if the Stephen Pearcy image was an American soldier and not a leftist pansy Berkley boy, heh?
July 28th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
God said to hold your LAMP so the world could see, not your GUN–and I don’t think he was referring to your twisted, bloodthirsty desire to see your fellow man maimed. If Jesus came to dinner at your house instead of a “French communist’s wife,” I wonder if he would instruct you to murder Stephen Pearcy…
By the way, the excessive use of smiley faces kind of makes you look silly (I don’t mean to be rude, I just wanted you to let you know how it appears to outsiders). If you expanded your vocabulary to be more expressive, you wouldn’t need to rely on the overuse of cute icons to get your point across. And to some of you (especially the lynch-happy SSGT): An exclamatory sentence requires only one exclamation point(!). And an interrogative sentence only needs a single question mark(?). A little bit of grammar goes a long way.
July 28th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Oh c’mon. There’s all kind of scripture that backs up defending yourself and the lives of the innocent. You’re just as bad as frenchie,
Let’s start in the Old Testament.
“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him,” we are told in Exodus 22:2. The next verse says, “If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”
In other words, it was perfectly OK to kill a thief breaking into your house. That’s the ultimate expression of self-defense. It doesn’t matter whether the thief is threatening your life or not. You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property, the Bible says.
The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They didn’t send in the Marines. The people defended themselves.
In 1 Samuel 25:13, we read: “And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff.”
Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required.
Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm: “They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?”
The answer to the rhetorical question is clear: No. The people had rebelled against God and put away their weapons of self-defense.
“Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight,” David writes in Psalms 144:1.
Clearly, this is not a pacifist God we serve. It’s God who teaches our hands to war and our fingers to fight. Over and over again throughout the Old Testament, His people are commanded to fight with the best weapons available to them at that time.
And what were those weapons? Swords.
They didn’t have firearms, but they had sidearms. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus commanded His disciples to buy them and strap them on. Don’t believe me? Check it out.
Luke 22:36: “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
I know. I know. You biblically literate skeptics are going to cite Matthew 26:52-54 – how Jesus responded when Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest: “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”
Read those verses in context and they support my position. Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation – as well as undermining God’s plan to allow Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection.
Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place – at his side. He didn’t say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. What Jesus was saying was: “Peter, this is not the right time for a fight.”
In the context of America’s current battle – as we make plans to rebuild after the devastation of Sept. 11 and defend ourselves at the same time – we should recall Nehemiah, who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem.
“They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon,” we’re told in Nehemiah 4:17-18. “For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded.”
Both the Old and New Testaments teach individual self-defense, even if it means taking the assailant’s life in certain circumstances. This is not murder, which is prohibited by the sixth commandment. (Exodus 20:13)
Yet it is written, “…But now, he who has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Consider that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual – the equivalent then of a military rifle today.
July 28th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
I don’t see what the big deal is. If I’m understanding right, it is o.k. to print up shirts that say assassinate Bush, or art of America being flushed down the toilet…but if it is a lefty in the picture then it is not art? Am I missing something? Cao, I think you should just relax. These dogs are all bark.
July 28th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
That’s precisely my point, Jay.
July 28th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
Comment by Chris — “Early Warning Systems Operator” — WOW; I’ll bet that title left you with skidmarks in your skivvies, huh?
I’ve been inside Cheyenne Mountain and seen those Operators at work; so no big deal to me.
LOL — you and “Combat Arms” support, and I wouldn’t have a hope in battle? Give me a break, kid … there were weeks I spent alone in the jungles and didn’t have my “military-issued 3-squares”; so, save that for someone who gives a rats-*** and who loves bedtime stories.:mrgreen:
Neither of us were any braver, nor smarter — you have no clue as to where the Corps sent me after ‘Nam, but I still possess a current Pentagon-issued T.S. Clearance that I still use to this day when going into many buildings during visits to Washington on business.
+++++++++++++++
Comment by Robbie — You’re right; O-3 is above an E-6 … only certain Military Officers get my respect, and this is not your week, as you’re definitely not on my short list.:lol:
As for a book — many of us, including myself, are still wondering what the hell you’re talking about … guess it’s that Army OCCIFER training of wondering out loud and not making any sense to those around you.:roll:
+++++++++++++++
Comment by Cao — “I don’t know what Rob is talking about as far as a ‘book’ reference. Rob ought to pick one up, it would be to his credit if he shut up and started reading.”
ROTFLMAO — no; as a “typical Army OCCIFER”, he needs someone to get the book and read it to him.:mrgreen::lol::grin:
+++++++++++++++
Comment by Tater-Breath — “If you expanded your vocabulary to be more expressive, you wouldn’t need to rely on the overuse of cute icons to get your point across. And to some of you (especially the lynch-happy SSGT): An exclamatory sentence requires only one exclamation point(!). And an interrogative sentence only needs a single question mark(?). A little bit of grammar goes a long way.”
Expand my vocabulary — who the **** asked you, Twinkle-toed; 14-eyed Communist???:evil:
Are you still living in the Dark Ages, Numbnuts, or are you stuck in the Virginia hills???:shock:
+++++++++++++++
For the rest of you “Barking Dogs” —
WOOF…WOOF…BOW-WOW!!!:lol::grin::mrgreen:
July 28th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Caos,
Please take me seriously here.
I would take that photo of Kerry off your website.
You could be running afoul of the law
July 28th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Caos,
I would remove the kerry photo. Just freindly advice
July 28th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
I have reported you to the FBI. Your last photo is over the line
July 28th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
This creep came over to my blog and is threatening you with prison over there. Told him to just stay over at my blog and leave you alone.
July 28th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
the kerry thing is out of line
July 28th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
He’s a moron…. don’t sweat him. He has no idea which direction is up and which is down. The argument that he is making didn’t work for Rev. Fallwell against Larry Flint. And that picture isn’t even doctored.
July 28th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
SSgt, Ahh.. So your like some sort of “Super Duper Double Secret Agent!” wow, I hope I didn’t expose you or anything.
Why do I think everything you say about the military you just pull out of your large ***? If the government is giving people like you “Super Duper Double Secret” clearance then we are all screwed.
Come on, we all know you are just a washed up has-been who only dreams about things they never accomplished. You can admit, you’ll still be a big guy, you can cry if you need to. Tis ok…
I call lame, you’re the kind of person who loves hiding behind a computer screen and a screen name, cause then you can be what ever super hero you want to be.
July 28th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
I have reported your web to the fbi
July 28th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
OK, he has now reported me to the FBI! woo hoo! I’m sure they already know all about me! I told him to give them my regards for collecting the files on the ACLU, and he has been banned over there too. I’m not wasting my time with him.
Chris, you sure are a rude ****!