American Patriots Opinions Page

Time for a Treason Trial

The US Constitution defines the act of treason as follows, “Treason against the United States , shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” [Article III , section 3.]

The last time America charged and prosecuted anyone for the act of treason was in 1947. Hans Max Haupt was convicted of treason and sentenced to life in prison for aiding his son who was a spy for Germany during World War II. The son, Herbert Hans Haupt, was tried, convicted, and executed by a military tribunal. The elder Haupt helped his son find a job, gave him a place to live, and bought him a car, all while knowing that his son was working as a German spy. The government argued that the father supported his son's espionage by committing acts of aid and comfort to the enemy. Haupt's trial was the last treason case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Modern liberal Democrats scoff at the term “treason”, used by many other Americans with increasing regularity, to describe the recent string of overt actions by “democratic progressive liberals” seeking to regain political power. They scoff because there is no such thing as treason in their minds, and all things are fair game in pursuit of power, even at the expense of American lives, even when they find themselves the bedfellows of America ’s worst enemies.

But are they right? Is treason a humorous term and charge that has outlived its usefulness? Or has it just become such a favored political tool of opposition, through its wholesale use by high-ranking government officials and low-life dissenters alike, that it is an un-prosecutable crime today?

If a political operative opposed to American policy broke into the CIA , stole TOP SECRET files that included sensitive war related intelligence reports and shared them with American enemies, who benefited by that information during a time when the US was engaged in battle, every American in this country would call this an overt act of treason.

If a CIA agent stole [leaked] those same files and sent them to enemy headquarters during a time of war, he would be called a double agent and he would be prosecuted as a traitor. Every American would again, call this an overt act of treason and they would be right.

Yet when a news reporter, working in secret collusion with a rogue CIA employee, sneaks TOP SECRET sensitive intelligence briefings out of CIA headquarters and broadcasts them on world-wide television, or plasters them all over the front page of every newspaper in the world, both embarrassing the nation they call home and providing direct aid and comfort via shared TOP SECRET security information to every enemy around the globe, some Americans call these people “whistle blowers”, heroic patriotic dissenters?

When an opposition political party pounces on that front page story and races to cash-in on it as a campaign tool, as we have seen Democrats do repeatedly without ever wondering much less worrying how such information became public from our most trusted secret intelligence offices, then the whole damn lot of them are guilty of an overt act of treason…. Or… there’s no such thing as treason. (If there’s no such thing as treason, then there is no such thing as national security either…)

When they do it repeatedly, and they do, there is no mistaking their intent…

One such reporter is Mark Mazzetti, who reports for such lofty clients as World News, and the NY and LA Times. Mazzetti’s latest scoop is the much publicized NY Times headline Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat, based entirely upon “leaked” fragments from a nine page CIA report, allegedly titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ allegedly shared with Mazzetti by a CIA employee sworn to secrecy, who remains nameless and faceless. Our most secure information is not protected, but those who leak it are…

Need I point out that when a reporter’s right to conceal his source includes a right to conceal the identity of a traitor, a trusted CIA employee who is clearly engaged in “leaking” the highest level national security secrets, a traitor in a position to do great harm - something is horribly wrong in America !

Mazzetti has a pattern of this behavior by the way. His previous scoops include numerous “leaked” headlines concerning so-called classified national security information supposedly available to only the most trusted members of the US government. Mazzetti seems to be the most valuable asset to both America ’s enemies and the Democratic Party, both immediately out in force working his headlines for political gain before the ink is even dry.

(See other Mazzetti headlines here) You’ll find that Mazzetti has spent a lot of time digging up anything that would undermine America ’s war on terror, which means, providing aid and comfort to America ’s enemies, always from secret sources inside the US government. In fact, Mazzetti has yet to write a pro-American piece concerning the war against those who attacked us on 911 or those who would attack again.

Now politics has always been a high-stakes game and dirty tricks are unfortunately commonplace in that arena. But not so long ago, we drew the line somewhere just short of treasonous acts, especially during times of war. Not any more. All is fair, even treason, in politics. Everything except quizzing a former President about his eight year role in the events leading up to the most deadly terror attack on US soil that is…

A US President was once forced to resign from office under threat of impeachment for spying on the campaign offices of his political opponent. But someone inside our most trusted intelligence community is cherry picking fragments of secret intel reports and leaking it to a carefully selected anti-administration reporter willing to print it in an anti-administration newspaper to provide campaign material for the opposition party, providing our enemies with information they are not supposed to have in that process and nobody bats an eye or wonders who this secret double agent for the DNC is???

In recent months, we have heard these headlines regurgitated by Osama Bin Laden, almost as if he’s on the DNC Talking-Points fax blast list, or at least a subscriber to the NY Times. We have recently heard the nut running Iran and the South American dancing monkey from Venezuela use these same headlines as their best propaganda tools. We are at war…a war tough enough as it is. This kind of help, we don’t need.

Many Americans have asked why the NY Times is allowed to continue its front-page war against the war on terror. President Lincoln stopped the presses from rolling across this land when reporters became so blatantly careless with their reporting at the expense of additional American lives. What the NY Times is engaged in is far worse…and could easily come with much greater consequences. Yet they operate with impunity, repeatedly exposing our most guarded national security secrets?

When our enemies get off another attack on US soil, using information picked up from the front page of Al Jazeera, courtesy of Mazzetti or one of his fellow reporters, disseminated via the DNC Talking-Points fax blast, who will be to blame for those attacks? Bush? I’m sure that’s how Mazzetti, the NY Times and Democrats will write it. But will they be right?

Mazzetti has friends… lots of friends. Many members of the modern US press are complicit. He is the best friend the Democratic Party has today. Almost every political propaganda attack launched by Democrats [or America ’s enemies] against Bush’s war on terror resonates from a column written by Mazzetti or his friends. Most of them “leaked” TOP SECRET information from a protected source working inside the CIA , or Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - secret sources that should be drawn and quartered…not protected by the First Amendment.

Are these acts of treason? There are only two ways a single American could doubt that these are all acts of treason, acts that aid, abet and comfort our enemies, acts that undermine those charged with preventing the next 911.

1) If you in any way benefit from these leaks, as all liberal democrats seek to, because you agree politically with the purposes behind such leaks, these breaches of public trust, these cowardly acts against American security, then in your mind, they are acts of courageous patriotic whistle blowing. The leaker of the information, the overtly biased reporter scooping the headlines and the politicians hoping to cash-in, are all heroes to you.

2) If you believe that the US government should function in a glass house, open for all to see and know, even in intelligence operations, even in war planning, then you must also believe that there is no such thing as TOP SECRET information or operations, no such thing as TOP SECRET clearance, and therefore, no such thing as treason.

If you fall into either of these two categories, then you will have no problem with the NY Times, Mazzetti or his friends, the CIA agent illegally divulging national security secrets, or even those who use this information to pursue political power or kill more Americans.

If on the other hand, like I, you believe that these things equal no such thing as national security, then it is high time to begin prosecuting high crimes. It’s time to put a stop to this madness before more innocent people die. Saving a fledgling political party can not be more important than saving innocent American life by protecting national secrets at all cost. Only those with no respect for human life to begin with, could see it any other way.

No administration can defend this or any other nation against foreign aggressors with trusted security agents leaking and the press printing TOP SECRET national security plans, exposing every vulnerability and warning our enemies of every US initiative to block their next attack.

A reporter’s right to protect his source must not be allowed to trump the nation’s right to protect its national security secrets and defense plans. If this is allowed to continue, we will get hit again. There is nothing any administration could do to stop it… No administration can be asked to secure our nation while under attack from within for every effort to do just that.

In 1947, a man was jailed for life for buying his son a car, helping his son find a job and a place to live. His son was executed for sharing sensitive American information with America ’s enemy. What these people are doing today is far worse and the potential consequences are beyond imagination.

It’s time to call these acts what they are and prosecute them to the full limit of the law.

If you think the average American voter is going to entrust national security to people willing to expose national security secrets as a campaign tool to regain political power, think again!

You are damn lucky we are so civilized these days. In the old days, every red-blooded American would have appointed himself judge, jury and executioner for people like this. They wouldn’t be just put out of business - they’d be put out of our misery, for good!

It’s time for a treason trial. We must begin by charging and prosecuting one, setting the standard by which all others will be judged. Mazzetti seems a great candidate. But then so does almost every Democrat in Washington DC today and every Hollyweird loud mouth…

Pick one, any one, and let it be known that real Americans still know what treason is and we are still prepared to prosecute those who practice such hideous acts in their search of political power.

Mazzetti is no hero - neither is who ever keeps leaking Top Secret security information from inside our most trusted agencies and neither are those politicians rushing to gain political advantage from these leaks instead of rushing to shut them down…

All of these people should be removed from any position of trust because clearly, none of them can be trusted…

What other nation in history has obsessively investigated itself during time of war? When are we going to quit beating ourselves up and move down the road?

Just a few weeks ago, we were treated to Phase 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report analyzing our failures of prewar intelligence for the millionth time. The Committee -- with a nominal majority of Republicans and a working majority of antiwar members -- reported that the administration had been wrong in alleging a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

As Republican Chairman Pat Roberts made clear, the working majority cherry picked the evidence to conclude there was no relationship when the weight of the evidence indicated there was -- going back 10 years, no less. Condoleezza Rice confirmed that there were always dissenting opinions, but that the prevailing view among our intelligence agencies was that there was indeed a relationship.

The committee demonstrated its absurdity elsewhere, too, when it concluded, preposterously, that Saddam didn't consider the United States an enemy because he said so during his debriefing. The committee chose to believe that obvious lie from a lying, murderous tyrant over his consistently contradictory statements and behavior over the previous decade.

So we're paying federal dollars to be told we must ignore our lying eyes and ears: that we must conveniently forget Saddam's myriad verbal jihads against the United States because he later made the self-serving statement that he hadn't considered us an enemy? This is too much. You might also recall that we fought a war against this maniac in 1991. I suppose he didn't consider us the enemy then either, or when he shot at our planes in the no-fly zones.

The same kind of counterintuitive, nonsensical analysis has surfaced again this week through yet another leak from the treasonous New York Times, which selectively reported that an April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate concluded the Iraq war has exacerbated worldwide terrorism.

Of course, this little leak wasn't designed to feed into the Democrats' November election propaganda message, now was it? Surely you've heard the line many times before: President Bush diverted resources from capturing Osama bin Laden -- the only terrorist chieftain in the non-global war on terror -- to pursue his recklessly quixotic vendetta against Iraq. This unprovoked, preemptive strike on the non-threatening Saddam has caused Muslims the world over to hate us and swelled the ranks of terrorism.

When will these tone-deaf people get it through their heads that Islamic extremists have hated us since before the flood (figuratively, of course)? When will they comprehend that Osama attacked us before we attacked Iraq?

Besides, who would expect that our attack on Iraq would endear us to the enemy? It's not like we sent them a love letter. But if Iraq were not a terrorist-supporting state, why would the terrorists care? Why have they invested so much of their resources to disrupt the Iraqi freedom experiment? Why are they trying to foment a civil war there if Iraq has nothing to do with the global jihad?

More importantly, why does the left keep dredging this stuff up? The answer is they have no alternative plan for Iraq and they figure the only way they can make headway on the national security issue is to continue to paint Bush as a liar, which brings me to the main point.

Democrats have been telling us nonstop that President Bush's policies -- his alleged unilateralism in general, and his attack on Iraq specifically -- have caused an otherwise loving enemy to hate and wage war against us. If that's true -- which it isn't -- how much more true is it that the feelings of the Muslim world (and the European left) toward the United States have deteriorated as a direct result of the Democrats' constant lies about President Bush?

If they truly believe our policies have intensified the hatred of Islamic extremists toward the United States, then why don't they quit telling the world -- when they know better -- that President Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and about Saddam's relationship with Al Qaeda? Why don't they quit falsely charging that it is the covert policy of this administration to torture enemy combatant detainees at Gitmo? Why don't they quit saying that President Bush attacked Iraq for its oil?

Easy. They either don't believe negative world opinion of the United States spawns terrorism as they claim, or they don't care whether it does or not -- at least they don't care as much about that as they do regaining political power.

By David Limbaugh LINK

September 13, 2006

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace — al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" — staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.

By ANN COULTER

In a word, yes!... Living in America (legally or illegally) does not make one an American. Accepting, adopting, understanding, believing in, living, promoting and defending real American foundational principles, (the American dream), makes one an American. Nothing less will do…

One who works to stop others from smoking can’t be called anything short of anti-smoking. One who works to stop others from owning guns would certainly and appropriately be deemed anti-gun rights, or anti- 2nd Amendment. If you work to stop abortions, you are certainly anti-abortion and if you work to undermine fundamental American principles, you are obviously anti-American.

Does this mean that one must believe in and support all administrations and their agendas or policies? No! Does this mean that one can not openly dissent from federal policies? Hell No! Does this mean that people can’t speak out against the things they do not support? Of course not… Dissenting and speaking out is a very American tradition - as long as that dissent is consistent with foundational American principles and values. But if that dissent is in opposition to American principles or interests however, it is by its nature, anti-American. Those who do it are therefore un-American.

Too often today, people get so caught up in politically motivated rhetoric that they miss the real message hidden beneath that rhetoric. They find themselves arguing over the two sides of the same coin. They find themselves supporting power-hungry political parties instead of principled political leaders on individual merits. They also find themselves placing partisan bickering ahead of the nation’s best interests. Then they wonder why their system of self-governance is failing them…

Our system of self-governance only works as well as the people work it. If the people work the system poorly, the system will fail them. The system was designed to never fail the people. However, the potential for the people to fail that system is very real and we seem to be reaching our potential in this regard today.

For starters, one can not hate all foundational American principles and still be a useful American. You can live in America, but that alone won’t make you an American. Just as many American expatriates live abroad today, still believing in and defending the American principles of their roots, expatriates from abroad live in America too, and many foreign visitors still believe in and support the anti-American principles of their homeland. They are not Americans. They are visitors. Unwelcome visitors in many cases.

Just being born in America does not make one an American either. Many born in America have fallen to international and homegrown anti-American rhetoric, themselves believing in and pursuing un-American agendas today. No matter ones birth place, those who hate American principles and support anti-American agendas are in a word, un-American.

America was founded on a very short list of broadly stated yet pretty specific fundamental principles hard to misinterpret, though not so hard to undermine via intentional misrepresentations. All of these principles combine to make up the American way of life, in essence, what it means to be American.

Capitalism is the official American economic principle. It is also the polar opposite of Communism, between which lies Socialism. Capitalism has other names, free enterprise, individual economic freedom, a free market, economic self-determination, financial liberty, the right to determine ones own station and destiny. People who oppose capitalism oppose a fundamental American principle and promote un-American economic principles by default. It is just that simple…

The traditional family unit is an official fundamental social value essential in America. It is a foundational principle; the ideal standard intended to promote a healthy society. This is not to say that anything less is unacceptable, only that anything less is less than ideal and therefore, not promoted as something equal. To attack the traditional family unit is to attack a foundational American principle.

Freedom of religion and open religious expression is a foundational American principle. There is and can be no official federal religion. All peaceful religions are welcome and given equal free status in America. All are free to practice and express their individual beliefs with impunity in America, including those who believe in nothing at all. People who work to silence religious expression or denigrate religious beliefs in America are working to undermine a fundamental American principle. No getting around it…

The Declaration of Independence is our nation’s founding document, not the US Constitution. It is the Declaration that established America as a free sovereign nation of self-governed people, recognizing certain (almost limitless) unalienable God given individual rights, beginning with Life itself, personal Liberty and the right to define and pursue ones own personal Happiness and economic condition.

The US Constitution was the (foundational) organizational document that established the means and methods by which a free sovereign people would govern themselves. It was not written to enumerate the many individual rights of a free people. It was written to limit the duties and rights of a federal government that would always pose the greatest threat to individual freedom.

The First Ten Amendments, referred to today as our Bill of Rights, was a poor attempt to limit government even further by enumerating several specific individual unalienable rights. Too many misrepresent these and all other Amendments as the complete list of individual right’s today, the exact opposite of their well documented intent.

To use intentional misinterpretations of the Constitution to undermine the broad freedoms established under the Declaration of Independence, is to attack foundational American principles and it is entirely un-American, especially when the judicial branch charged with defending those written principles is the attacker.

National sovereignty is a foundational principle established in the Declaration of Independence. Those who wish to relinquish our national sovereignty in exchange for some UN governed EU sanctioned and monitored greater global good, are operating against America and every thing our founders established. This too is an un-American endeavor.

National security is the primary purpose and function of the federal government. Diverting precious resources to promote Socialism through an endless stream of social services that erode personal freedom and bankrupt our nation, is what our federal government was supposed to defend its citizens against.

Diversity is not a problem in the most diverse nation on earth. The idea that any nation can teach America about diversity is just plain nutty. What nation on earth is more diverse than America, from any angle, religion, race, color or nationality perspective? The answer is none!

But today, we are being sold divisive anti-American hogwash under the inappropriate guise of diversity. That’s because if we call it what it really is, class warfare driven by Marxist principles, most Americans wouldn’t buy into it.

The point is, while many Americans burn the flag, march the streets, demonstrate in front of buildings and file financially motivated protest law suits under the heading of “honest patriotic dissent” – most of them are doing so at odds with these and other fundamental American principles, and there is nothing American or patriotic about it!

If you are against capitalism, traditional family values, freedom of religious expression, life – liberty and the pursuit of individual happiness through personal effort, the Constitution as it is written, national sovereignty or security, then you are in fact against every thing America is, ever was, and was ever intended to be. And that my friends, is un-American…

If you walk into a voting booth and cast a vote for any candidate who is against any or all of these things, then you are casting a vote against America and that too is an un-American act.

Now…You people who have a long history of working against these and other American principles will not be pleased to hear that this alone by definition, makes you un-American. I can’t help that. It’s not my rules, not my personal opinion, just the way it is. I didn’t write our nation’s principles; I just fight to uphold them, as should you. If you don’t and the shoe fits – kick yourself with it!

The rest of us who love, support, defend and promote all true American ideals, must stop apologizing for doing it.

America has enemies, both here and abroad, both outside aggressors and those from within our own ranks. We are as obligated to defend this nation against the enemy within as we are all foreign aggressors. Fortunately, we can usually do that peacefully in the voting booth.

But if we don’t do it there, we will one day fight the enemy within with the same tools of war used to fight our enemies abroad today.

Our founders gave us the tools to peacefully defeat America’s internal aggressors at the voting booth. Un-American is as un-American does. They can call it whatever they want and they will. But the rest of us must know them by their real name on the basis of their anti-American actions.

Keep them at bay at election time or face them on your doorstep one day. Much of Europe is learning this lesson the hard way as we speak. Americans are supposed to know better!

The reason modern Democrats keep losing elections is their entire party plank is built upon anti-American principles and rhetoric. No matter what disguise or politically correct (marketable) term they use to promote their so-called “progressive” agenda, people who know and love real American principles and values are not fooled.

However, according to today’s Democrats, those who can not be fooled by anti-American socialist drivel are greedy fascists, right-wing capitalist pigs conspiring to ruin America by keeping it as free as possible.

Sticks and stones… Call me what you want! Pro-America is all I am…

Written by JB Williams ©2006 (Posted with Author's express permission)

Democrats are convinced that Americans keep electing Republicans either because they are stupid, or because the DNC message just isn’t reaching the electorate. How could their message not reach the electorate when the lamestream press covers their message daily on every front page?

Their message is out there, we hear it, we get it - it isn’t that complicated. Even my second grader gets it.

In short, nothing about America is right or good in the eyes of Democrats and their campaign message is, nothing short of a complete DNC victory can change that. This is their message… Everything sucks and only Democrats can fix it… We get it…

We hear you loud and clear – like a broken record actually.

The war on terror SUCKS! Bush lied, people died, terrorists did nothing to us, we caused it all, we can’t win, Islamic terrorists are “freedom fighters” and American soldiers are “Nazis”.

We hear you! We suck!

Our economy SUCKS! Matter of fact, capitalism and our free market system SUCKS! Capitalism only rewards those who earn, leaving those who don’t behind and that SUCKS!

We get it! Socialism is better – we hear you!

Western Medicine SUCKS! Doctors, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals - bad. Trial lawyers - good. We get it! We have the best medicine in the world but it is too damn expensive and that SUCKS! We understand! Socialized medicine – good!

American Intelligence SUCKS! No WMD, no Bin Laden, torture camps and “Gulags”, NSA eavesdropping, no Geneva Convention for terrorists, no United Nations cooperation and so many leaks that information flows from our secret services like water through a kitchen colander.

WE SUCK at intelligence! Got it!

Our Military SUCKS! They are a rag tag bunch of broken manipulated fools doing the dirty work of the Bush Empire. They are poorly trained, poorly outfitted, poorly led and poorly fed. Their spirit is broken, they can’t fight their way out of a wet paper sack and only Democrats can fix everything that is wrong with the military, its leadership and its capacity to win wars. Hear ya loud and clear!

Freedom SUCKS! Freedom is the basis of self-determination and if every American was capable of self-determination, who would be a Democrat today? That SUCKS!

Free Speech SUCKS! If it concerns religion or any form of moral principle. All else is fine…

Life SUCKS! Life is often inconvenient, always unfair and sometimes downright tough.

We get it, abortion – good, euthanasia – good, life – bad.

The Founders SUCK! The framers got it all wrong with their silly God given inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Huh! Just a bunch of wealthy landowners securing their own dynasty at the expense of the little guy. Marx and Lenin, now these fellows are some real progressive thinkers who cared about the little guy.

We get it! Socialism – good…

Justice SUCKS! Come to think of it, the Constitution SUCKS! We need Supreme Court judges willing to re-write the Constitution since the framers got it all wrong. The framers left so much out that we need special kinds of justices who will write-in the missing parts. The written Constitution – bad, the imaginary Constitution – good. That’s why Alito SUCKS!

Marriage SUCKS! So does the traditional family unit. Unisex – good, communal living – good, traditional family values – bad. Hard to miss this one!

Israel SUCKS! Hamas, Hezbollah, Mujahidin, Al Qaeda, all freedom fighters, not terrorists.

Palestinians – good, Jews – bad! We hear you loud and clear!

Corporations SUCK! Driven by extreme greed, they plan and plot the destruction of average Americans; they rape and pillage our nation’s resources. Modern day despots responsible for all things evil in the world. Labor unions – good, corporations – bad.

Face it, AMERICA SUCKS! This is the message that Howard Dean and other DNC leaders have been peddling for some years now. We have not missed their message. We couldn’t miss it if we wanted to. It is pounded into the American psyche day in and day out, around the clock, news paper upon news paper, on every network news program in the country.

Democrats aren’t out of power because we missed their message. They are out of power because we are sick and tired of hearing their message.

Two days ago, CNN/Gallup announced the results of their current nationwide survey, in which only 16% of voters strongly support a Hillary Presidential run in 2008. THAT SUCKS since Hillary is by far the clear front-runner in the DNC camp. 51% say there is no way they would ever vote for a Hillary Presidential bid. No shocking headline to most Americans, but it SUCKS!

Democrats continue to misread the public on a range of matters, but none more than the public disdain for Democrat’s anti-American message. Contrary to the assessments of Democratic campaign strategists, their problem isn’t that their message isn’t resonating. It’s that it is resonating, negatively!

American’s have heard their message, loud and clear, like a broken record… They just don’t buy it!

People who believe AMERICA SUCKS will vote for any Democrat that runs for any office today. But nobody else will and most Americans don’t believe that our country or our founding principles SUCK!

Republicans are poised to win even more power in the coming elections and all they have to do is hand a microphone to the Democrats, sit back and enjoy the show. It’s Democrats who don’t get it and until they figure it out, they will continue to repeat their mistakes over and over, getting the same results every time.

According to most Americans, DEMOCRATS SUCK!

Written by JB Williams

By Diana West

Jun 19, 2006

Discussing the "war on terror" has been endlessly awkward. Terror -- like a blitzkrieg, sneak-attack or disinformation -- is a tactic, not an enemy. But in our politically-correct era, we dwell on the tactic, never defining the enemy.

Drop 500-pound bombs on his head if we must -- and we must -- but don't describe him as an Islamic jihadist in the age-old tradition of Islamic jihadis going back to Muhammad. Such historical precision might be hurtful and insensitive, and we wouldn't want that.

Indeed, as a matter of American foreign policy, we don't want that. Better to keep things vague and indirect, much as the Victorians are reputed to have done to avoid giving offense in the drawing room. Once upon a time, We the People were crass enough to have repelled a German blitzkrieg, defied Japanese sneak attack, and even, some of us, combated Soviet disinformation. Now, We the Peoples are "enlightened" to the point where we send armies out for years to fight generic "terror" -- no matter how specifically Islamic that it is.

There are many reasons why this matters, not least of which is that, without understanding the religious nature of jihad (holy war), along with its sister institution of dhimmitude (inferior status of non-Muslims under Islam), there can be no triumph over jihad and no avoiding dhimmitude. There can also be no understanding of the religiously rooted attitudes toward jihad movements among even non-violent Muslims, generally ranging from a tacit ambivalence to wild adulation.

Even as we fight our war against "terror," we simultaneously fight against any such understanding. Maybe the reason goes beyond reflexive PC manners. Maybe the West simply doesn't want an "enemy" at all; maybe we simply want to safeguard ourselves against "terror." Maybe our elites believe that, in targeting only terror, the enemy will learn to like us, and terror will go away.

This mindset may explain why the United States exhausts itself trying to disclaim a connection between Islam and jihad, opening Islamic centers on U.S. military bases (most recently at Quantico at the behest of a Wahhabi-educated cleric). Thus, as Paul Sperry writes at frontpagemag.com, "facilitating the study of the holy texts the enemy uses, heretically or not, as their manual of war"; treating those same holy texts reverentially by military order at Guantanamo Bay; and even sending in the Marines to donate prayer rugs to an Iraqi mosque.

Such tactics suggest we no longer seek a military triumph over Islamic jihad -- if we ever did. Had we prosecuted such a war, it would be over by now. The president would have directed the military to eradicate, freeze or neutralize jihadi threats where they exist, from Iran to Syria, from Gaza to Fallujah. Concurrently, we would have closed our own borders as a post-Sept. 11 security precaution, and implemented an immigration policy designed to avoid repeating the European example of Islamization through massive Muslim immigration or, as some are calling it, "reverse colonization."

But no. Such a war on terror long ago gave way to the Struggle to Make Everyone Think We're Swell. In this no-win fight, we must watch what we say -- as when the government "distances" itself from an official's frank characterization of three suicides at Guantanamo Bay as a jihadi "PR stunt." And we must watch what we do -- as when we repeatedly send our military on dangerous house-to-house missions with restrictive rules of engagement rather than using air power. In a war in which an interrogation could save a city, we rewrite our interrogation rules to make sure that it won't. "If this debate were limited to what's best for interrogation purposes, the decision (about whether to soften interrogation techniques) would be pretty easy," a senior Defense Department official told The New York Times. "But then you have to look at what we lose diplomatically.'"

Why? What are we, Liechtenstein?

The Washington Times' Tony Blankley recently noted the defeatism in America's about-face with jihadist Iran -- the looming front in the war. By offering non-military nuclear technology or else threatening non-military sanctions, the Bush administration seems to have acquiesced to what Blankley describes as "the only 'respectable' position" among both European and American elites: namely, "the absolute exclusion of a military option."

If true, this would mean that the already inadequately titled "war on terror" would no longer refer to "war" at all. And that would leave only ....

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 16, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The Rev. Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition have targeted oil giant British Petroleum in their latest high-dollar shakedown, an organization that monitors corporate ethics said Thursday.

Despite the fact that BP was a "Bronze Sponsor" of the Coalition's 35th annual conference held this week in Chicago, Jackson announced that he was returning the company's $10,000 donation as part of a boycott to demand greater minority involvement in the corporation's business practices.

Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) was not impressed with Jackson's gesture.

"It is pretty obvious what is going on here," Flaherty stated. "BP sponsors Jesse Jackson's conference at the $10,000 level, but the company is certainly capable of a lot more. No doubt, Jackson seeks to upgrade them to the $150,000 'Platinum Sponsor' level for next year.

"Nobody likes being called a racist for obvious reasons, but instead of these corporations defending themselves and standing up for themselves, they basically just want to buy off the enemy," Flaherty added.

In addition, any money BP spends to stay in Jackson's favor would be wasted, Flaherty said.

"Jesse Jackson is bluffing a foreign company," Flaherty noted. "He has virtually no ability to affect the consumer habits of Americans, or even African-Americans.

"The reason he is going after BP is the same reason he threatened a boycott of Toyota in 2001," Flaherty said. "Executives of foreign companies are often under the misimpression that Jesse Jackson still commands wide respect in this country."

Jackson claims that while British Petroleum gets 30 percent of the money African-Americans spend on gas, BP has few minorities in executive positions and few African-American distributors. In addition, fewer than 20 of its 13,000 retail stations in the United States are owned by blacks.

"We don't want charity, we want parity," Jackson noted. "We are challenging the petroleum industry. We want equity and parity and access to distributorships."

British Petroleum spokesman Scott Dean said that Jackson is underestimating the number of minorities employed by and contracted with the company.

"BP has been making tremendous strides in increasing our representation of minorities in wide aspects of our businesses," Dean said.

While Jackson said that none of British Petroleum's gas distributors is African-Americans, Dean responded that about 20 percent of its independent BP and ARCO dealers come from minority groups, and two members of the company's board of directors are black.

In addition to ignoring the Rainbow/PUSH-led boycott, BP should end its financial support of Jackson, Flaherty stated.

"The New York Stock Exchange and several companies are now saying 'no' to Jesse Jackson," Flaherty said, and "there has been no retribution or negative consequences of any kind."

However, Jackson noted that the boycott is also the beginning of an attack on high gas prices and excessive profits in the oil industry.

"You keep gouging gas. We're going to drive down the price of gas," Jackson said. "We're going to fight back. We intend to march on BP until they bring the price down.

"We don't need BP. There is another station around the corner," Jackson added. "The cost of energy is undermining America's living standards. That's why we're going to confront British Petroleum, and then on to Exxon and Shell."

Still, the oil industry wasn't Jackson's only target during this week's convention, which had "A More Perfect Union: Free But Not Equal" as its theme and featured such speakers as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the Rev. Al Sharpton, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

The PUSH president said he was also going to "confront the mass media in bicultural joint negotiations" regarding diversity in TV and radio news as part of an effort to bring together black and Hispanic groups on issues they have in common in the wake of recent immigration controversies.

CNN spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg responded in a statement that her network "is committed to offering a wide range of voices on our air and in the selection of stories we report every day. This is a priority for us not just domestically, but also around the world and across all of our platforms."

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Jackson has been called a "shakedown artist" and a "racketeer" for criticizing companies' minority hiring policies, then ending his complaints after those corporations begin donating to projects sponsored by Rainbow PUSH.

Among the companies Jackson and his organization have had financial dealings with are Coca-Cola, NASCAR, Wall Street, General Electric and DaimlerChrysler.

Few things make liberals more uncomfortable than being confronted with the racism of politically correct minorities.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about Autum Ashante, the precocious 7-year-old black nationalist poet, who said white people are "devils and they should be gone." If this daughter of a Nation of Islam activist father had instead been an Aryan supremacist child of a Klan activist, she'd still be all over the network news and pages of pop culture magazines (as a pair of white nationalist teen pop singers, Lamb and Lynx Gaede, have been since last fall). But with rare exceptions, nobody wanted to touch Autum's spoon-fed hatred with a 10-foot-pole. That would be, you know, "intolerant." We have to "respect diversity."

Well, this weekend, militant racism from another protected minority group was on full display. But you wouldn't know it from press accounts that whitewashed or buried the protesters' virulent anti-American hatred.

An estimated 500,000 to 2 million people, untold numbers of them here illegally, took to the streets of Los Angeles to protest strict immigration enforcement and demand blanket amnesty for border violators, visa overstayers, deportation fugitives, immigration document fraud artists, and other lawbreakers. Mexican flags and signs advocating ethnic separatism and supremacy filled the landscape. Demonstrators gleefully defaced posters of President Bush and urged supporters to "Stop the Nazis!" Los Angeles talk show host Tammy Bruce reported that protesters burned American flags and waved placards of the North American continent with America crossed out.

Bet you didn't see that on television.

One of the largest, boldest banners visible from aerial shots of the rally read: "THIS IS STOLEN LAND." Others blared: "CHICANO POWER" and "BROWN IS BEAUTIFUL." (Can you imagine the uproar if someone had come to the rally holding up a sign reading "WHITE IS BEAUTIFUL?")

Thugs with masked faces flashed gang signs on the steps of L.A.'s City Hall. Students walked out of classrooms all across southern California chanting, "Latinos, stand up!" Young people raised their fists in defiance, clothed in t-shirts bearing radical leftist guerilla Che Guevera's face and Aztlan emblems.

Aztlan is a long-held notion among Mexico's intellectual elite and political class, which asserts that the American southwest rightly belongs to Mexico. Advocates believe the reclamation (or reconquista) of Aztlan will occur through sheer demographic force. If the rallies across the country are any indication, reconquista is already complete.

Lest you think these ideas are moldy-oldy 1960s' leftovers that no one subscribes to today, listen to Sandra Molina, 16, a junior from L.A.'s Downtown Magnet High School, who complained to the supportive Los Angeles Times: "This is unjust. This land used to belong to us and now they're trying to kick us out."

Nor are these sovereignty-obliterating grievances confined to the wacky West Coast. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, marchers carried signs that read: "If you think I'm 'illegal' because I'm a Mexican, learn the true history because I'm in my HOMELAND."

Open-borders sympathizers in the press strained to look the other way. As Slate writer Mickey Kaus, who attended the L.A. demonstration, noted, the Los Angeles Times buried any mention of the presence of Mexican flags in its initial "propagandistic" report—and then eliminated any reference to them at all. Cracks Kaus: "I used to write this sort of press-release 'news' account when my college paper assigned me to "cover" anti-war demonstrations that I'd helped organize!…The Times' effort is filled with representative quotes from participants, without a note of dissent."

Apologists are quick to argue that Latino supremacists are just a small fringe faction of the pro-illegal immigration movement (never mind that their ranks include former and current Hispanic politicians from L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to former California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante).

But you'll never hear or read such forgiving caveats in the mainstream press's hostile coverage of the pro-immigration enforcement members of the Minutemen Project—who are universally smeared as racists.

For peacefully demanding that our government enforce its laws and secure its borders.

Yes, borders.

Last time I checked a map of North America, they still do exist.

Unless we give in and let the bullies and their appeasers whitewash those out of existence, too.

"Borat": The Joke's on You, America

October 31, 2006