Nuggets of Wisdom

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Who Needs Choice?

Imagine living in a world where you never made your own decisions, where you only had one choice of everything (food, clothing, shelter, transportation, employment, healthcare, etc.) and that choice was made by someone else, preferably an all-powerful state.

Wouldn’t that be such a wonderful world to live in? You wouldn’t feel overwhelmed by the choices you had to make, and therefore, not feel stressed-out about making your own decisions. And you wouldn’t have to worry about what other people thought, because everyone is exactly the same as you.

I’m sure most—if not all—of you would find such a world bland at best, Orwellian at worst.

Not moonbat professor Renata Salecl. To her, making choices causes anxiety and peer pressure and hinders social change—like giving women the choice to work outside the home, or giving blacks the choice to drink from the same fountain as whites, or giving gay couples the choice to marry.

Here’s her lecture as illustrated by YouTube user RSA Animate:



And here’s Lee Doren (aka: HowTheWorldWorks) debunking her diatribe:

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

This Week In News

For the past week, I’ve been enjoying having the house to myself while my folks are off on their second honeymoon. Meanwhile, I’ve been busy writing two articles for the local newspaper.

And the world keeps spinning. Here’s what’s been happening in the news:

Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduced a bill that would end federal prohibition on marijuana. With a recent report by The Global Commission on Drug Policy declaring the War on Drugs a failure, maybe Americans will realize that criminalizing drugs does more harm than good, and be more willing to legalize them.

Gay Marriage was legalized in New York. Good news if you’re a same-sex couple; bad news if you’re a homophobe. On a related note, Ann Coulter mocked Ron Paul for wanting government to stay out of marriage. (She also said she disliked libertarians—making me lose respect for her by two points.) Ryan McMacken wrote an excellent rebuttal.

The Supreme Court declared that video games have the same constitutional protections as other forms of speech. In other words, bans on video games, like the one passed in California five years ago, are unconstitutional. Somewhere, Jack Thompson is sitting in the corner, crying like the sad bag of bones he is.

NBC omitted “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance during the opening to the US Open. NBC later apologized. I place this “controversy” under “who gives a crap?”, especially since the phrase “Under God” wasn’t added to the pledge until 1954—over 60 years after it was written—by a socialist! (In a consistent universe, Glenn Beck would be decrying the pledge as a socialist plot to indoctrinate schoolchildren, while Michael Moore would be demanding all good Americans recite it.)

Herman Cain accused Jon Stewart of mocking him because he’s a “black conservative.” Sigh. I really, really hate it when people play the race card to defend a black politician—especially Obama. Republicans shouldn’t have to resort to such a tactic. This is something Democrats resort to. But then again, neither party has any integrity, especially in matters of race.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Republicans Were Never For Limited Government—Ever!

With apologizes to my Republican followers.

Republicans claim to be the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility, even though history has proven them to be the exact opposite. One need not look further than the eight years under Bush, who had no problem shoving the Constitution through the shredder and spending money like a drunken sailor.

As a registered Republican myself (though one seriously considering going Independent), I want to say that most Republicans are hypocrites, but I think I should call them for what they really are: liars!

At least Democrats are honest when they say they want to expand the federal government and waste taxpayer money. Republicans just lie—flat out lie! They’re like a drunk pissing on your shoes and telling you it’s only rain. In fact, the only Republican who doesn’t lie is Ron Paul, and the other Republicans hate him because he doesn’t lie!

Don’t believe me?

The following video by YouTube user ShaneDK chronicles the history of Republican presidents from Abraham Lincoln to "The Gipper" himself, exposing them for the lying liars they really are: Are Republicans Really for Smaller Government?

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Six Reasons Olbermann Is No Longer On Countdown

Keith "Bathtub Boy" Olbermann returned to hosting Countdown earlier this week on his new channel Current TV—good news if you’re a pot-smoking college dropout; bad news if you’re a rational person with a functioning brain.

The following are "The Stupid Six Reasons Keith Olbermann Is No Longer On Countdown" as presented by MAD Magazine:

1. He needed time off to undergo intensive physical rehab, after tearing every muscle in his neck making those overdramatic camera-to-camera swivels.
2. He finally used up every possible synonym for “bad,” including “reprehensible,” noxious,” feculent,” accursed,” “stygian,” turpitudinous,” “naufragagting,” and “grody to the max.”
3. It’s a tough economy, and MSNBC plans to eventually outsource his job to Guatemala.
4. Just as in Tunisia and Egypt, Olbermann was another entrenched tyrant to be swept from power by a sudden uprising.
5. It frees up five hours of MSNBC airtime to show even MORE prison shows about flesh-eating convicts.
6. Olbermann finally came to understand that his cartoonish one-sided rhetoric was nothing more than the mirror image of the lowest slanders coming from the other side of the political divide, and that by automatically reducing every opponent to a thuggish monster, he had long since become grotesque, fatally corroding his own moral center. (Ha! Just kidding!)

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Rick Perry’s Big Ol' Texas Prayer Rally

Gov. Rick Perry announced last week that he was going to hold a stadium-sized prayer rally August 6 in order for Texans to pray for the problems facing the state and the nation. As can be expected, the governor has received plenty of criticism.

Personally, I place this new story under the same category of the Weinergate “scandal”: “Who gives a crap?!” I’m a Christian as much as the next person, but I never really saw any use behind these prayer rallies, especially the controversial National Day of Pray. You know what would really help our country? Actually getting off our asses and doing something! After all, God helps those who help themselves.

But I wanted to showcase some YouTube videos about the “controversy.” First one is from The Amazing Tub O’Lard (aka: TheAmazingAtheist). As can be expected from a rabid anti-theist, he ridicules the event, even going so far in claiming that not even the Onion could satirize the story.




The next video is from CobraJones. He argues that, contrary to what many people have been arguing, the event does not violate the separation of church and state because it doesn’t use public funding.




This next video is a response by TheTruePooka, who argues that the event is indeed unconstitutional because Rick Perry is a public figure, and therefore, a call to prayer from him is an endorsement of religion. He also argues that the event will be used to push forward the agenda of Christian political groups and to support the idea that America is a “Christian Nation.”




This last video is a response by FederalistFilms. He argues that politicians like Rick Perry do not forfeit their freedom of speech or religion when they obtain office; so Perry is well within his right, as with any American citizen, to issue a call to prayer provided he does not use public funds or endorses the event as an official government act.




Well, you’ve heard my opinion, and that of these four gentlemen, but I want to know what you all think: What is your opinion of Rick Perry’s pray rally? Do you support it? Why or why not? And of these four videos I’ve shown, which one do you agree with?

Saturday, June 11, 2011

What Weiner Should Have Done

An excellent piece of satire by Paul’s Ego demonstrating how Anthony “I’m Gonna Tweet My Junk” Weiner should have handled his “scandal”:



And just for the record, I don't agree with Anthony Weiner—especially with his politics, but I think there are more important things to worry about that the personal life of a politician, even if it is a Democrat.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Constitution Obsolete In Tennessee?

When I read headlines like Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress", I tend to laugh, thinking it’s a story from The Onion.

A new Tennessee law makes it a crime to "transmit or display an image" online that is likely to "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" to someone who sees it. Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines.
Then I realize it’s a real news story, and I continue laughing—because otherwise I would cry.

The ban on distressing images, which was signed by Gov. Bill Haslam last week, is also an update to existing law. Tennessee law already made it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a manner the sender "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" to the recipient. If the communciation lacked a "legitimate purpose," the sender faced jail time.

The new legislation adds images to the list of communications that can trigger criminal liability. But for image postings, the "emotionally distressed" individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you "should have known" that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.
So if you live in Tennessee, and you post a picture on MySpace or DeviantART that someone finds “emotionally distressing” according to their own personal standards, you could be arrested and facing jail time.

Give me a break!

The First Amendment is supposed to protect all speech, especially the most unpopular. After all, if all speech were popular, the First Amendment wouldn’t have to exist in the first place.

Everyone has a right to post whatever images they want online, even if some namby-pamby sissy boy finds it “emotionally distressing.” (Oops! I wonder if that will cause someone emotional distress? Good thing I live in Florida!)

But, oh wait, it gets even worse:

Another provision of the legislation governs law enforcement access to the contents of communications on social networking sites. The government can get access to "images or communications" posted to a social networking site by offering "specific and articulable facts," suggesting that the information sought is "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."
Yep! This legislation also doubles as a Tennessee version of the Patriot Act, allowing law enforcement to check your Facebook or MySpace pages—even if they’re in private, and without your permission—if they think the material is “relevant” to a criminal investigation.

So not only does it infringe on our First Amendment rights, it also infringes on our Fourth Amendment rights.

Gee, Tennessee, why not just shove the entire Bill of Rights through the shredder, you bunch of toothless inbred hicks! (And I hope that causes someone emotional distress!)

Thursday, June 9, 2011

8 Years For Prank? (And More Bad Cops!)

I don’t normally highlight videos by the Amazing Tub O’Lard (a.k.a.: The Amazing Atheist), but his recent two videos managed to strike my interest.

Here’s his first video ranting about a teenager being sentenced 8 years in prison for—of all things—pulling a high school prank:



And here’s his second video. I obviously disagree with the first part where he rants against the death penalty, but I was intrigued by the second part (which starts at 4:52) where he rants about police officers who fired at an unarmed man (hitting four innocent bystanders) and confiscated and destroyed the video evidence.



Our law enforcement, ladies and gentlemen!

When they’re not busy arresting people for victimless crimes like smoking pot in the privacy of their own home, or having consensual sex with strangers for a price, or feeding the homeless in a public park, they’re sentencing teenagers eight years in prison for a harmless prank and using excessive force against a single civilian (while four bystanders are caught in the crossfire).

I mean, what’s the point of sentencing the boy to eight years in prison? I understand the need to be tough on crime, but eight years in prison for a harmless prank? By the time he’s released from prison, his peers will have already graduated college (and possibly graduate school) and chosen their career paths while the boy is stuck with his high school education and lack of work experience. How is that justice?

And I don’t know what’s worse about the second video: the fact that half a dozen cops found it necessary to fire at a man who didn’t instigate any violence and who possibly didn’t fire back (all while four innocent bystanders are caught in the crossfire), or that the police have the right to confiscate (at gunpoint, no less) and destroy any video evidence of themselves. Just what is with the law against videotaping the cops? They can videotape us, but we can’t videotape them? That just gives them more power over us!

As I mentioned before, law enforcement should stop wasting time and energy prosecuting people for victimless crimes like senior pranks and videotaping cops. That way, they can focus on major crimes like rape and murder. But then again, as one of my followers on DeviantART said, most cops would rather go after an unarmed civilian violating a petty ordinance rather than an armed criminal committing a serious crime.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Dear Republicans: Please Lay Off Weiner!

Dear Republicans,

Ever since I was old enough to vote, I’ve been a registered Republican. But as time progressed, and I matured, I’ve been starting to question your intentions. You’ve all preached against the vice of “big government” and the virtue of “fiscal responsibility,” yet your actions over the last eight years under Bush have proven it all to be mere rhetoric.

After all, is it not “big government” to wiretap phones without warrants or torture detainees for information? And how can you criticize Obama for the bank bailouts when Bush started the bailout trend with the mortgage companies? It seems to me that you all prefer big government when it suits you, and only care about the fiscal responsibility of your opponents.

We managed to vote you all into the majority of the House of Representatives, hoping you would curb spending. And what do you do with your time? You make anemic cuts to things like Planned Parenthood and NPR—items that, when combined, make a fraction of a percent of the overall budget. Here’s an idea: how about making cuts to our overbloated military? Surely, with all that we spend on the military, we could makes generous cuts and still be capable of defending ourselves from a foreign attack.

Then you guys use the rest of your time tackling social issues such as abortion. Look, like the rest of you, I believe that life begins at conception, and would fully support an amendment giving the unborn child personhood, with all the rights and protections of a grown human being; but now is not the time to do so, not when our country is on the verge of economic collapse with two (no, make that three!) military conflicts overseas. We need to focus our time and energy on economic and foreign policy, not menial social issues.

And then there’s the way you shun those who don’t follow lock-and-step with your current ideology. Why do you ignore candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson—both whom are the closest to being true Barry Goldwater conservatives—and instead highlight people like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin—both whom have failed to take their run for presidency seriously?

And now, we come to the latest hubbub over Anthony Weiner. So the guy tweeted a picture of his junk to one of his fangirls. And he managed to step forward earlier this week, despite denying it beforehand, and confessed. Whoop-de-freaking-do! The only good that came out of this was being able to watch liberal pundits, who defended the man through the entire “scandal” (if we could even call it a scandal), wipe egg off their face after his confession.

Other than that, I couldn’t give a crap. I could care less about the personal life of a politician. If Ron Paul wanted to go Hugh Hefner on us and date a playboy bunny every day of the week, I’d still support his noninterventionist foreign policy and opposition to the Patriot Act (you know, all the reasons you hate the guy). Because even though character is important, nothing is more important than politics.

And I will be clear: I vehemently disagree with Weiner’s politics. The man has supported extending Medicare, passing Obamacare, legalizing partial-birth abortions, and censoring free speech. But though I hate his politics, I would never attack his character or personal life, and I most certainly wouldn’t force him to resign as you are all suggesting now.

Seriously, you want to force him to resign over something he posted on Twitter? How is this any different than attacking Sarah Palin for her daughter getting pregnant or attacking Christine O’Donnell for dating a witch in high school? I’d expect such behavior from Democrats. Only they care about unleashing personal attacks against their opponents rather than addressing their politics.

So please, stop blowing this situation out of proportion and cut the man some slack. He’s just another guy looking for some poontang—something every man in office, from King Henry VIII to Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has sought. He’s a man, after all. I don’t like him either. But at least try addressing something relevant, like his politics.

Sincerely,

BlameThe1st

P.S.: Here’s a video by Jack Hunter (a.k.a.: the Southern Avenger) elucidating my point:



P.S.S.: Please make Ron Paul the nominee for 2012!

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Jack Kevorkian Dead (Plus Disturbing Comments To Young Turks Video)

I will be honest: like everyone else, when I first heard of Jack Kevorkian, the infamous doctor who helped terminally-ill patients commit suicide, I was disgusted by the man. But as the years went by, and I became more mature (and with the help of Neal Boortz’s chapter on Terri Shaivo in his book Somebody’s Got To Say It!), I learned that the world isn’t entirely black-and-white.

Every human being has the right to do with their life as they see fit provided they harm no one else; and no one, especially the government, has the right to dictate what they can and can’t do with it. If a person is terminally-ill, possibly without a chance of recovery, they should have the option to end their life.

Personally, I feel that when modern medicine fails, God has a chance to intervene and provide a miracle, and I believe most people should at least wait for a miracle to happen. But that’s my personal preference, and I don’t believe anyone else should be forced to abide by it.

That said, I’m slightly disturbed by some of the praise surrounding the man. Recently, the Young Turks released a video praising the man’s legacy.



But perhaps the comments to the video were much more disturbing:

I don't get people, if your dog has terminal cancer you'd be considered exceedingly cruel if you didn't put them to sleep, yet if you're a person (who has more feeling and sensitivity to pain both emotional and physical) you've got to wither away in agony for months. If someone is mentally sound and decides to end their life when there is no reasonable hope of salvaging it then i think they should have that right.
• People have the compassion to put down their sick animals, but not their loved ones.
• We put animals down why can't humans be put down too?
• The longer I lay in a hospital half-alive, the longer I take up a bed for someone who can get better.


So because it’s okay to put a sick animal to sleep, it should also be okay to put a sick human being to sleep? Also, we should be willing to kill someone off if it means making more room for the hospital?

Moral reasoning like that makes me worry about the future.

Hate To Be Cenk Ugyur Right Now!

When it comes to news stories, I place the Weinergate "scandal" under “Who Gives A Rat’s Behind?!” Personally, I could care less about a politician’s personal life. Ron Paul could go Hugh Hefner on us and date a Playboy bunny every day of the week, and I’d still support his noninterventionist foreign policy and opposition to the Patriot Act.

But I just had to mention Rep. Anthony Weiner confessing to having posted a picture of his junk on Twitter, especially since moonbats like Cenk Ugyur of the Yong Turks are now wiping egg off their face for defending him.

Here’s the Young Turks video on Weiner’s confession:



And here are the rest of the prior videos defending him:







How many want to wager that moonbats are going to come up with a conspiracy theory claiming Weiner was bribed by the corporations to confess in order to make the Republicans look good?

Wouldn't phase me!

Feeding The Homeless Should Not Be A Crime!

Our law enforcement, ladies and gentlemen!

When they’re not busy arresting people for getting stoned in the privacy of their own homes, or for having consensual sex with a stranger for a price, they’re arresting people for feeding the homeless. Because it’s not like there are worse crimes to crack down upon like rape or murder, right?

Feeding the homeless is usually seen as a charitable act beyond reproach. But three members of national activist group Food Not Bombs found themselves on the other side of the law in Orlando, Fla. Wednesday for doing just that in a public park, an act that violates a city ordinance.

The three were arrested for, according to spokesperson for the Orlando police, “intentionally violat[ing] the statute,” which bans feeding groups larger than 25 people in the park without a permit. Groups can apply for a permit for each location twice a year.

Douglas Coleman, a spokesman for the group, sees the issue differently: “They basically carted them off to jail for feeding hungry people.”

“For them to regulate a time and place for free speech and to share food, that is unacceptable,” he continued.

This entire controversy began when, according to the Christian Science Monitor, Food Not Bombs began feeding the homeless twice a week in Lake Eola Park in 2005. After residents began to complain, the city passed the ordinance in 2006. The group filed a lawsuit disputing the constitutionality of the law.

When the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled the ordinance did not violate the group’s constitutional rights last June, Orlando city attorney Mayanne Downs explained that the law was passed “to protect all the downtown parks from abusive use or overly exclusive use by one party or community.” The group appealed again, but lost in April.

Keith McHenry, co-founder of the group and one of those arrested, told the Orlando Sentinel they planned to keep feeding the homeless without permits.
Apparently, Food Not Bombs! has had similar incidents with the police numerous times before. It’s even been targeted by the FBI as a possible terrorist organization. Yes, because when I think of terrorists, I think of organizations that feed the homeless and support non-violence!

Personally, I find the endeavors of this organization admirable. The poor and needy are best served when people get off their asses and actually do something to help them, rather than remain planted on their asses handing their tax dollars over to Uncle Sam to fund another government program that does little to nothing.

I also like the organization’s anti-state, anti-war stance. Heck, if they weren’t tree-hugging, tofu-eating socialists, I’d happily join!

And believe it or not, this isn’t the only organization to be penalized for feeding people without a permit! Many churches have been given cease-and-desist orders to stop serving home-cooked meals for the homeless.

This is one of the main reasons why I oppose regulation and support a free market. Sure, some regulation is necessary, but most of it tends to do more harm than good. When a permit is the only thing preventing you from feeding those who would otherwise go without a warm meal, you know bureaucracy has gone nuts!

Monday, June 6, 2011

Welcome To Post Legal America

Rarely do I whole-heartedly agree with someone from the far-left, especially someone like Dennis Trainor, a.k.a. Davis Fleetwood (a.k.a. a moonbat so far-left, he makes Michael Moore look far-right). But as the old saying goes, even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

And in his most recent video Welcome To Post Legal America on his No Cure For That YouTube channel, the broken clock managed to tell the correct time, or rather give the correct opinion that Obama wasn’t the hope and change America had hoped for.



Surprisingly enough, I managed to agree with everything the moonbat had to spout, namely that there is relatively little to no difference between Bush and Obama. Both supported blowback-inducing foreign policies, both supported unconstitutional military actions, and both had contempt for constitutional rights, if not the Constitution itself.

The only part he got wrong was when he repeated the moonbat mantra that deregulation of the banks caused the economic crisis, when, in reality, it was the exact opposite.

Like I said, broken clocks only tell the correct time twice a day. The other 22 hours: dead wrong!

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Defending Our Freedoms?

Remember in my last post when I noted how bitterly ironic it was for Obama to extend the Patriot Act on the same weekend that Americans honor those who died fighting for our freedoms? Well, perhaps I gave too much credence to those soldiers “fighting for our freedom.”

Don’t get me wrong. As the grandson of a WWII veteran, I respect the brave souls who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country and the freedoms it stands for. But with every war follows the limiting of said freedoms for the sake of “national security”—be it through the Espionage Act during WWI or the Patriot Act during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And for every just war the United States have been involved in, there are plenty more unjust wars and military actions.

Jacob G. Hornberger, president of the The Future of Freedom Foundation, wrote the following open letter to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, urging them to re-evaluate their purpose for being there:

Dear Troops:

Yesterday – Memorial Day – some people asserted, once again, that you are “defending our freedoms” overseas.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those people are just repeating tired old mantras. The reality is that you are not defending our freedoms with your actions overseas. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Your actions overseas are placing our freedoms here at home in ever-greater jeopardy.

Consider your occupation of Iraq, a country that, as you know, never attacked the United States, making it the defender in the war and the United States the aggressor. Think about that: Every single person that the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Yet, the countless victims of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have friends and relatives, many of whom have become filled with anger and rage and who now would stop at nothing to retaliate with terrorist attacks against Americans.

Pray tell: How does that constitute defending our freedoms?

It was no different prior to 9/11. At the end of the Persian Gulf War, the troops intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water and sewage facilities after a Pentagon study showed that this would help spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people.

It worked. For 11 years after that, the troops enforced the cruel and brutal sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. (See “America’s Peacetime Crimes against Iraq” by Anthony Gregory.) You’ll recall U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it.”

By “it” she meant the attempted ouster of Saddam Hussein from power. You will recall that he was a dictator who was the U.S. government’s ally and partner during the 1980s, when the United States was furnishing him with those infamous WMDs that U.S. officials later used to excite the American people into supporting your invasion of Iraq.

The truth is that 9/11 furnished U.S. officials with the excuse to do what their sanctions (and the deaths of all those Iraqi children) had failed to accomplish: ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a U.S-approved regime.

That’s what your post-9/11 invasion of Iraq was all about – to achieve the regime change that the pre-9/11 deadly sanctions that killed all those children had failed to achieve.

No, not mushroom clouds, not freedom, not democracy, and certainly not defending our freedoms here at home. Just plain old regime change.

In the process, all that you – the troops – have done with your invasion and occupation of Iraq is produce even more enmity toward the United States by people in the Middle East, especially those Iraqis who have lost loved ones or friends in the process or simply watched their country be destroyed.

In principle, it’s no different with Afghanistan. I’d estimate that 99 percent of the people the troops have killed, maimed, or tortured in that country had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Why did you invade Afghanistan or, more precisely, why did President Bush order you to do so?

No, not because the Taliban participated in the 9/11 attacks and, no, not because the Taliban were even aware that the attacks were going to take place

President Bush ordered the troops to invade Afghanistan – and, of course, kill Afghan citizens in the process – because the Afghan government – the Taliban – refused to comply with his unconditional extradition demand. You will recall that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to an independent tribunal to stand trial upon the receipt of evidence from the United States indicating his complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Bush responded to the Taliban’s offer by issuing his order to the troops to invade Afghanistan, kill Afghans, and occupy the country. In the process, U.S. officials installed one of the most crooked, corrupt, and dictatorial rulers it could find to govern the country, one who is so incompetent he cannot even hide the manifest fraud by which he has supposedly been elected to office.

In the process of installing and defending the Karzai regime, the troops have killed brides, grooms, children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, and countrymen, most of whom never attacked the United States on 9/11 or at any other time. They simply became “collateral damage” or “bad guys” for having the audacity to oppose the invasion and occupation of their country by a foreign regime. (It should be noted for the record that U.S. officials considered these types of “bad guys,” as well as Osama bin Laden and other fundamentalist Muslims, to be “good guys” when they were trying to oust Soviet troops from Afghanistan.)

Was there another way to bring bin Laden to justice? Yes, the criminal-justice route, which was the route used after the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

That’s right. Same target, different date. In fact, the accused terrorists – Ramzi Yousef in 1993 and Osama bin Laden in 2001 – were ultimately located in the same country, Pakistan.

In Yousef’s case, he was arrested some three years after the attack, brought back to the United States, prosecuted, and convicted in federal district court. He’s now serving a life sentence in a federal penitentiary.

No invasions, no bombings, no occupations, no killing of countless innocent people, no torture, no war on terrorism, and no anger and rage that such actions inevitably would have produced among the victims, their families, and friends.

In bin Laden’s case, we instead got a military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, where the troops have killed, maimed, tortured, and hurt countless people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

How in the world have your invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq defended our freedoms here at home? Indeed, how have the assassinations and bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else defended our freedoms?

All these things have accomplished is keeping foreigners angry at us, thereby subjecting us to the constant and ever-growing threat of terrorist retaliation here at home. As I have pointed out before, the U.S. military – that is, you, the troops – have become the biggest terrorist-producing machine in history. Every time you kill some Iraqi or Afghan citizen, even when accidental, ten more offer to take his place out of anger and rage.

That’s the same thing that was happening prior to 9/11. In fact, there were some, including those of us here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, who were warning prior to 9/11 that unless the U.S. Empire stopped what it was doing to people in the Middle East (including the deadly sanctions on Iraq, the support of Middle East dictators, the stationing of U.S. troops near Islamic holy lands, and the unconditional money and armaments to the Israeli regime), Americans would be increasingly subject to terrorist attacks. On 9/11, we were proven right, unfortunately. (See Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson.)

How does the constant threat of terrorist retaliation arising from your actions in Iraq and Afghanistan make us freer here at home, especially when you – the troops – are responsible for engendering the anger and rage that culminates in such threats, owing to what you are doing to people over there?

Consider also what the U.S. government does to our freedoms here at home as a direct consequence of the terrorist threat that you, the troops, are producing over there. It uses that threat of terrorism to infringe upon our freedoms here at home! You know what I mean – the fondling at the airports, the 10-year-old Patriot Act, the illegal spying on Americans, the indefinite detention, the torture, the kangaroo tribunals, Gitmo, and the entire war on terrorism – all necessary, they tell us, to keep us safe from the terrorists – that is, the people you all are producing with your actions over there.

In other words, if you all weren’t producing an endless stream of terrorists with your invasions, occupations, torture, assassinations, bombings, and Gitmo, the U.S. government – the entity you are working for – would no longer have that excuse for taking away our freedoms.

This past Sunday, the Washington Post carried an article about American wives who were recently greeting their husbands on their return from Afghanistan. Newlywed Anne Krolicki, 24, commented to her husband on the death of one of her friends’ husband: “It’s a pointless war,” she said.

That lady has her head on straight. She’s has a grip on reality, doesn’t deal in tired old mantras, and speaks the truth. Every U.S. soldier who dies in Iraq and Afghanistan dies for nothing, which was the same thing that some 58,000 men of my generation died for in Vietnam.

Please don’t write me to tell me that you all are good people or that you’re “patriots” for simply following whatever orders you are given. All that is irrelevant. What matters is what you are doing over there. And what you are doing is not defending our freedoms, you are jeopardizing them

Sincerely,

Jacob G. Hornberger
President
The Future of Freedom Foundation