Stupidity in defense of liberty is no virtue

From the mid- to late 1960's, civil strife in this nation was rampant. Leftist anti-war radicals were rioting on college campuses. Black street gangs were rioting in our major cities, and fears of a right-wing racist backlash were rampant. During this period the nation was in fear of insurrection. The national guard was called out on many occasions and US Army troops were also called to defend life and property. Because the US Army was involved, Army intelligence services were required to help understand the situation and the individuals instigating these riots. Pertinent FBI reports were monitored by our military intelligence specialists. There were some instances of Army special intelligence agents also monitoring US civilian activities when Army personnel had to be involved in suppressing these college campus and urban riots.

There was one chap in Army intelligence (I'll call him "Weasel 1") who disagreed with the concept of the Army gathering some of its own intelligence in preparing itself for its assigned riot control mission. In fact, his complaint went to the US Supreme Court as Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972). Specifically, the complaint accused the U.S. Army of alleged unlawful "surveillance of lawful citizen political activity." The case was dismissed for "lack of ripeness", meaning it was determined that no harm was done. Not surprisingly, Weasel 1 became a law professor and does work for the ACLU. Weasel 1 and the ACLU thrive on stupidity in defense of liberty.

This 1960's history reminds me very much of the concerns of present day "Weasel 2" and his radical left cohorts. These Weasels are consumed with concern over the CIA's methods of interrogation, not of US Citizens, but of wartime captives who were involved in the worst ever atrocity against our nation, the 9-11 attacks. They also believe that our nations "values" are harmed in the eyes of our enemies because of our "enhanced interrogation methods" and because we chose to detain terrorists at Guantanamo, Cuba, during wartime, which by the way, we are still in. Weasel 2 also thrives on stupidity in defense of liberty.

Dick Chaney, who's primary mission as past Vice President was national security, gave a speech today (right after Weasel 2's speech) on this very subject. Mr. Chaney provides essential reminders of why we did what we did. More importantly, he reminds us of the ongoing threat - the ongoing need to continue the practices that kept us safe over the last eight years. We cannot consider his work "mission accomplished" as Weasel 2 apparently does. The threat remains, and is, in fact, even greater today given the progress of our enemies in developing and likely distributing nuclear weapons (see Iran and Pakistan.)

Dick Chaney's speech is a "must read" for anyone wanting to understand our past actions, and why we cannot adopt new policies that put the concerns of our enemies ahead of our national security.

Another Sign of Obama Sympathy Toward ALL Muslims

Talk about wasteful spending: Obama wants to spend $80,000,000 to relocate his Muslim buddies from Guantanamo to the US - in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. C'mon, Hussein! Thank goodness the congressional response to this absurd proposal crosses party lines.

Nothing better explains Obama's hell-bent desire to relocate the Jihadi Muslims from Guantanamo, Cuba, to your-home-town USA than his sympathies toward ALL Muslims, no matter their past deeds or current intent. The reason certainly can't be his desire to afford foreign terrorists the same legal rights enjoyed by US citizens, could it? Hmmmmm? But then again, granting rights of citizenship without citizenship to illegal aliens has been popular among the President and his misguided supporters. Why stop with Mexican lawbreakers. Why not extend this right to terrorists - err - misguided Muslims who yearn for rehabilitation?

Or could his actions be motivated by his desire to carry out a "good deed" in the eyes of the Muslim population at large by coddling the Guantanamo detainees so that he can earn their "good will." Unfortunately, that is both the worst case and most likely scenario. That is grossly misspending his substantial political capital to the detriment of our nation and culture.

So you feel bad for the Guantanamo detainees?

A good friend of mine recently forwarded a copy of the following letter to a "concerned citizen" from Donald Rumsfeld. Apparently, the federal government initiated a new program to address some of the concerns related to Guantanamo detainees. This official letter describes the new "LARK" program which enlists the help of these concerned citizens. Please provide a copy to any of your friends who may also be concerned about the treatment of Guantanamo detainees.


The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter expressing concern about our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington.

You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short. In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care. Your detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation to your residence next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter. Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome this character flaw. Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless you feel that this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him. He has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the dress code that he considers appropriate, but I'm sure that over time they will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the bhurka. Just remind them that it is all part of respecting his culture and his religious beliefs.

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you inform us of the proper way to do our job. Take good care of Ahmed and good luck!

Cordially,
Don Rumsfeld

(For those who take things way too seriously, this letter is a parody.)