I've been yelling for a long time that when people like John F'n kerry -who do things that would make the rest of us seek our own death in shame for having done them- do these(as informed as,if not more so,than the rest of us) acts in support of the enemy,that they are clearly being traitorous. But if no one of any status actually states it in those terms,why would they stop? No stigma = no motive to correct the behavior = a further emboldened enemy incurring ever increasing death and mayhem on the American Fighting Man and countless innocents.

  It is not necessary to know that you could convict someone of treason if you are making the case,that they are exibiting all of its traits,for the purpose of stifling their destructive behavior.If it is true,and it is most obviously true,that, "In the realm of practical effect, Kerry has given aid and comfort to his nation's foes",then the act of applying pressure to shut such a person up is in fact great patriotism,and deserving of applause and encouragement.

  If the definition of insanity is "The repeated application of failed principles,and expecting success anyway",then why should our side,the side that is serious about dealing with islamo-fascism,continue to treat those giving "aid and comfort to this nations foes" as though they are solid patriots who only want the best,when we know they will use our lack of clearly defined condemnation as license to continue in their destructive behavior that could very easily lead to our total destruction?

  These are deadly dangerous times that we live in and our enemies,both foriegn and domestic,are demonstrating greater boldness in getting what they want than we,their alleged opposition, are.We have the greatest military that has ever existed,and that military deserves better than what they get from "their side" when they are defamed because,the fact is,in the eyes of too many,the defamers and liars are winning the propoganda war,which is one war the military can do virtually no fighting in.

  If the American public,led by the great thinkers and pundits of the day,gets fired up and P'd off at the realization that they have been lied to about the virtue of their own American Fighting Man and the righteousness of his mission,then it will be far more likely that a vote conscious politician will get up enough nerve to insist that America take it to ALL of her enemies,for the sake of her very survival.

  Anything less and we are just biding our time until the day when the "aiders and comforters" have incorporated enough appeasement into the political system,to allow for "The Big One" to hit us,which would be akin to NOT having used every resource at our disposal,ie:The A-Bomb,to end the war in the Pacific. Something that most rational people realize saved Japan and the U.S. from even greater death and destruction.

  My fellow lovers of freedom, all I am suggesting is that we "go nuclear" on the collaborators before they bring their own brand of negotiated destruction to the,ever expanding as time goes by,masses of people who always get it when leaders don't lead,and thinkers don't act to compel them to.

the above is my response to this post by Josh Trevino at www.hughhewitt.townhall.com

Ah yes,this takes me back to when father would tell stories of how insane little German guys in train stations,back in the early to mid forties,would scrunch their(wearing a horribly foreshortened mustache) lips all up and make a scene by threatening to sue because of the prying questions porters would lay on them for "lookin' like daze a bit owtta plase in dese heaya pots".

Of course, back then we weren't blessed with great organizations working for the cause of diversity by obscuring any semblance of common sense,like cnn and the Atheistic Criminal Lawyers Union,so anyone ig'nant enough to commit such a "flagrante delicto",was just beat into the pavement.You see,America was under the quaint little dilusion back then that uniting against the enemy was good and virtuous,and people who mocked that sentiment deserved neither our respect nor much consideration from the local authorities. Somehow, we threw that baby out with the "Jim Crow Water".

Hears to at least a good old fashioned intellectual beatdown from now on(every time one of these inconsiderate, insensitive, 'strategerically' knocking our guard down,tryin' to shake someone down for money and takin' it for granted that we are ALL just a bunch of veal calves,waiting to be led to slaughter,types) being the overwhelming response America sends as a message to those who would erode our sense of self preservation.

Oh yeah,and a very merry Christmas to the good Doc and his family(and a fiery new year to satans impish lieutenants with the bomb vests and rusty knives).

   If this story about Sandy Bergler was about a republican stealing and destroying sensitve classified documents, on behalf of his convicted of perjury former president boss,the socialist advocacy conglomerate known as the "MSM" would not have stopped until every Haldeman,Ehrlichman,etc. right up to the "big cheese" was indicted and or destroyed.

Don't tell me the MSM only goes for the "sexy" story because the Clinton crew had EVERYTHING Watergate did plus a REAL deapthroat.

If and when this country is lost,it will be at the hands of those lying to us from birth about every aspect of American life current and past.

Informed Americans = Defeat of Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan.
Misled Americans = We lose(are about to lose) almost every major conflict ever since.

Why is it more exemplary of Americanism to tear down this country with the force of virtually every form of conventional dissemination of information,than it is to be a President trying to protect U.S. from outside forces who have already killed thousands of us on American soil ?

Your thoughts:

   We just had the "Iraq Surrender Group" report. Imagine an equally RIGHT leaning "Bi-partisan" group coming up with its pro-American victory/non anti-Israel report. Can you then imagine that same MSM not running a virtual anal exam (of every member in the "study group"),"proving" the conclusion that it was all just a conservative "dog & pony show" worthy of the circular file?

   Their(the lapdog,liberal advocate MSMs)total desire to not speak the truth every day is proof that they are ALL liars who should never be noted accept to illustrate their occasional out and out treason.Their lies of omission have worked in conjunction with the spoken ones,in the last 4 decades at least,to produce an electorate that is undereducated at best and floating on the winds of emotion at worst,ie:perfect liberal voters.

   Whenever I hear the "MSM" or any of its components (Rather,Kouric,NY crimes,cnnjazeera,msdnc etc.) mentioned, I automatically think, "Liars". Until we understand that they have an agenda and that is to fool the American people with pro-socialist/anti-American propoganda (see:"6 Iraqis Burned Alive" story), then we will continue to be fooled as well. Get your info from Hugh,Rush,Michelle,Claudia etc and let the MSM "wither on the vine".

This was going to be a response to this post by "scatbug",but why type so much w/o posting it?

WALLACE: You have voted at least twice to limit the power of the president to fight terrorists.

You talk about consequences. How do you satisfy yourself, as a justice in that white marble building up there, that when you vote to strike down a tool that the president, as commander in chief, is using in the war on terror, that you're not endangering the country?

BREYER: I don't think it was argued in — well, perhaps — but the case, for example, that we had, which was several years ago, probably the main one, was whether a person who is held as a prisoner in part of the United States, even if he was an alien at Guantanamo, had a right to come to court. And we held that he did have a right to come to court.

And there are...

WALLACE: But there's also the interrogation of prisoners, there have been other issues.

BREYER: We haven't gone into the — there have been a lot of issues, but, I mean, you're asking what we, in particular, have taken...

WALLACE: What I guess I'm asking...

BREYER: But your basic question is, how does the judge know? And the answer is that the judge has to look at the record and the testimony and what's being elicited, just as he does in all difficult cases.

Ultimately we have a Constitution that guarantees a democratic system and that guarantees certain individual rights. I show that in this book. I discuss some of them. The rights are important.

Of course, as Justice Goldberg said, as Justice Jackson said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Everyone understands that. And that's why that Constitution in the Fourth Amendment uses words like "reasonable." There is flexibility in it.

The court has made terrible mistakes sometimes in its history, now recognized. Eighty thousand Americans, Japanese Americans, citizens of the United States, were brought during the early parts of World War II to camps, camps where they were held against their will, even though J. Edgar Hoover said there's no need to do that and even though every historian says there was no need to do that.

But it happened, and the court ratified it over three votes — Jackson, Murphy, Roberts — who said, "Don't do this."

So what you've done, Chris, which is correct, is that you've shown how difficult that problem is. We can't ignore the civil liberties aspect. You can't ignore — you can't ignore the security aspect.

And what judges try to do in that situation is to listen to what they're told by the lawyers, the witnesses and the others, and then they do their best not to make a mistake.

Not as mistake as to their personal opinion, by the way, but a mistake as to how those words that guarantee freedom in the Constitution apply to this situation. END

The above exchange led to this post.