Treason is defined, in part, as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States, according to the Constitution (Article III, Section 3) and the United States Code (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, Section 2381). Yet the Constitution also states, in the First Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." How do we distinguish between free speech and treason? Where do we draw the line? The answer may be found using that least-used resource: common sense. 

I would submit that the elected leaders of this country have more responsibility than the rest of us to ensure that they give no aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. With American troops risking their lives in daily battle on behalf of the nation, critical words from those in leadership positions carry greater weight than in peacetime, both with the enemy and with our own troops.

Yet the leaders of the Democratic party consistently attack the war in Iraq with lies, from distorting the history of our confrontation with Saddam Hussein, to prevaricating about their own statements which led us to war, to defaming the character of every member of the Bush administration in turn. Worst of all, however, is the slander they spread about our troops.

The Chairman of the Democratic party, Howard Dean, said during a radio interview on 6 December that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." Does this statement not give "aid and comfort" to the enemy? The leader of a major political party, to which nearly half of all Americans belong, is telling the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq that they will win; that they will beat the United States.

Dean also said that, "this is the same situation we had in Vietnam," and in a certain sense, he's right. The beaten, demoralised North Vietnamese leadership was given new hope by certain American politicians and the press, to the point where they struggled on until America's Liberals turned public opinion against the war. America was forced to withdraw from Vietnam in disgrace, having never lost a battle, by people just like Howard Dean. With his defeatist statements, Dean is giving our enemies the aid and comfort they need to keep fighting. How many Americans will die because of Dean's irresponsible remarks, made only to seek political advantage? Tell me why that's not treason.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the Democratic party's most recent Presidential candidate, appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" on 4 December to deface the American military. Speaking to interviewer Bob Schieffer, Kerry said that "there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- the historical customs, religious customs." (And some people accuse GW Bush of being incoherent?) .

Does a United States Senator and former Presidential candidate accusing American soldiers of terrorising women and children in the dead of night not give aid and comfort to the enemy? Just as he did during Vietnam, John Kerry is falsely accusing American troops of committing atrocities as a matter of normal course in an attempt to undermine support for the war among Americans. As a consequence -- intended or not -- he is yet again handing America's enemies an immense propaganda victory. How many potential terrorists will have their hatred of Americans fueled by Kerry's matter-of-fact statement that American soldiers are terrorising women and children in their homes at night, breaking cultural and religious taboos? Tell me why that's not treason.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fully supports and endorses the recent statements of Representative John Murtha (D-PA), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Murtha has made a big splash among the anti-war faction by calling for an immediate -- within six months -- pullout from Iraq. On 1 December, Murtha told a group of leading Pennsylvania citizens that America would be forced to abandon Iraq within a year because the troops are "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth." Murtha is hailed as a hero in the media for suddenly changing his mind about the war in Iraq, but called it "unwinnable" and stated that "we cannot prevail... with the policy we have today," while urging President Bush to send even more troops in May 2004.

What a burst of enthusiasm Murtha's words must have engendered among our enemies! How much hope will they take from his proclamation that they are, in fact, winning the war? Despite fantastic losses, and despite earning the enmity of the Iraqi people, the terrorists and Saddam supporters in Iraq can now believe that if they just find the strength to hold on a little longer, they can push the hated United States out of Iraq. How many of the enemy will fight rather than surrender, because Pelosi and Murtha have told them they're winning? How does that not give the enemy aid and comfort? Is that not treason?

Not all Democrats follow the defeatist, destructive path of their leaders. But those ARE their leaders -- the Chairman of their party, their most recent Presidential candidate, their party leader in the House of Representatives. Some Democrat politicians have repudiated the statements of Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha and the rest... not because those remarks were vile, untrue and treasonous, but because the Democrats are afraid such openly anti-American statements might "harm efforts to win control of Congress next year," according to the Washington Post. The only way they can regain power is to hide their true feelings, and they know it. Treason, it seems, is still considered malapropos by some Democrats.

But not all.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the world's biggest Christmas fanatic, aside from giving gifts. I don't put up a tree, I don't decorate, I don't bake cookies and I don't sing Christmas carols (well, not while sober). I don't send out Christmas cards. I don't wear red and green clothing. I don't run down the street shouting, "Merry Christmas!" to everyone I see, like Jimmy Stewart in It's A Wonderful Life.

How outrageously self-centered would I have to be, though, to consider myself "offended" when others do those things?

82% of Americans belong to one Christian denomination or another, according to a 2002 Pew research poll, while only 1% consider themselves athiests. An ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll conducted the year before showed the number of Christians to be 83%. Only a tiny percentage of non-Christians take offense when the vast majority of Americans don't hide their religion. And why should they? Don't they have a right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, to the "free exercise" of their religion? Yet the loudly-complaining far Left demands that no one be allowed to "offend" them. I have yet to see a Constitutional right to "freedom FROM religion."

In recent years, the attack on public recognition of the major religion in this country has become offensive in itself. More stores are advertising "holiday sales," more organisations are holding "holiday parties" and more people are putting up "holiday trees" every year. Even the Capitol Christmas Tree had come to be called a "holiday tree" since the late 1990s, until House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) forced its offical name to return to normal this year. Fear of giving offense to 1% of the population is causing a great deal of offense among the rest of us. If I lived in a country where the population was more than 80% Muslim, I don't think I'd complain about public celebrations of Ramadan. If I lived in Israel, I wouldn't demand they refer to the menorah as a "holiday candlestick" just for me.

What the hell is a "holiday tree," anyway? What's it for? 

I was recently invited to a "holiday party" by a local Republican group. I will not attend, on the grounds that they didn't specify precisely what holiday they're celebrating. Is it Christmas? Hannukah? St. Lucia's Day? The Feast of St. Nicholas? Portugese Independence Day? Winter Solstice? A Week Before The End Of The Year Day? Baby-Eating Day? (I'm sure the Liberals would believe that.) I could get into a good old-fashioned Saturnalia, but I need time to get my tunic dry-cleaned. I don't celebrate generic holidays. If they aren't important enough for you to name them, they aren't important enough for me to celebrate them with you.

When they're done savaging Christmas, perhaps the militant secularists will go after Easter. How much fun will it be when the Holiday Bunny leaves Holiday baskets full of Holiday candy for the kiddies to find? After the children dye and decorate Holiday eggs, you can hide them and have a Holiday Egg Hunt. Maybe the whole family can watch the Holiday Parade on tv.

How does that sound any more ridiculous than secularising Christmas -- changing a tradition of centuries, celebrated by millions of families, just to appease a tiny, hate-driven minority? Do you think they wouldn't force Bing Crosby to re-record his biggest hit song as "I'm Dreaming of a White Holiday," if they could? Or would the Political Correctness Police have a problem with that, too? After all, there isn't much snow in the South, and children there might feel left out.

No one will make you celebrate Christmas at gunpoint. No one will kidnap you and drag you to a Christmas party, force you to sing Christmas carols off-key or demand that you wish anyone a "Merry Christmas." No one will make you enjoy yourself. You are free to not celebrate, as I am free to celebrate, a holiday that was a part of American society before there was a United States. If I wish you a "Merry Christmas," try not to launch into a diatribe about how I'm forcing religion down your throat.

Maybe I'll put up a Christmas tree, after all... just in case any militant secularists happen by.

As American and Iraqi hopes for Iraq's future continue to bear fruit, the Left has become ever more determined to claim each victory as a defeat, for purely political reasons. The only way for them to regain power, they believe, is to convince America to throw a war we're winning. Again.

Hey, it worked thirty years ago. Why not now?

The "mainstream" media generally reports the only the most negative or spectacular stories, seeming almost gleeful at times in their self-imposed death watch. Why else do you probably know without thinking the approximate number of American military deaths in Iraq, but would need to look up how many have died in Afghanistan? The terrorists, knowing this, try to do something flashy as often as possible -- roadside bombs, kidnappings or beheadings. Nearly every soldier who returns from or writes from Iraq seems shocked at how little of what's really happening there is ever mentioned in the newspapers or TV news. After a constant barrage of negative reporting, media outlets run their biased, weighted, oversampled opinion polls... and report the inevitable results as though they were news.

Think about it, though. Leading a coalition of nations, America toppled a brutal dictator whose regime destabilised the entire Middle East, after twelve years of his violating a cease-fire agreement with us. Government officials and influential people in the only major countries that declined to help were, as it turns out, in bed with the dictator all along. His mass graves are no longer being filled, his rape rooms and other violations of human rights are now shut down, his secret illegal weapons research stopped, and his sponsorship and training of terrorists are ended. Our military has performed above and beyond expectations, and the enemy only survives by hiding in and striking from the shadows. As time goes on, they are losing the ability to do even that. Yet to hear the Left tell the tale, the war has somehow failed.

A council representing all Iraqis was appointed to write an interim constitution; under that constitution Iraqis held their first free elections to select an interim government to draft their permanent constitution. The constitution was ratified by the overwhelming majority of Iraqi voters, and under that constitution they are about to elect their own government. Iraqis are free to debate the issues in public and vote for their own leaders for the first time in history. The world's oldest civilisation is the world's youngest democracy. Yet if you listen to the Left's spin, Iraq's future is somehow bleak.

Terrorists flocked to Iraq to prevent democracy from taking root there. That should give any reasonable person a hint that democracy in the Middle East is bad for terrorists... and what's bad for terrorists is good for the rest of us. They joined forces with the few thousand Sunnis who preferred a tyrant's rule to democracy. Beaten and demoralised, the "legitimate" resistance -- though no one who fights to enslave an entire nation can be called legitimate -- is now suing for peace. That will leave only the terrorists, backed by Syria, Iran and other al-Qaeda supporters, fighting the joint US and Iraqi forces. Until they, too, are beaten, we cannot and should not withdraw. Yet the Left insists that the US ought to abandon the Iraqis, even as their would-be conquerors are faltering.

Already hints of democratic reform -- baby steps, in some cases, but all in the right direction -- have swept through Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. The cesspool of tyranny, in which terrorism freely breeds, is finally being drained. None of this would have taken place without the fall of Saddam and the birth of democracy in Iraq. Yet the Left insists that the anti-democratic forces are somehow winning somehow.

Libya has surrendered its entire WMD program, which was far closer to building a nuclear weapon than we had previously supposed. The nuclear weapons proliferation ring headed by Abdul Qadeer Khan has been exposed. The festering corruption within the United Nations, which leads right up to the family of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, has been uncovered. The leaders of Iran and North Korea understand that we mean it when we say they will not be allowed to posess nuclear weapons. Countries around the globe that supported terrorism now understand that we are serious about halting that support. All of this sprang directly from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Yet the Left complains that we aren't "playing fair" with those sworn to destroy us and our way of life at all costs.

This isn't a game. We're not playing. This is a battle for the future of our entire civilisation. Do we want to give in to the demands of terrorists and their sponsor nations by running away from Iraq before the job is done, or will we push back against the Islamofascist tide that even now threatens to engulf Europe?

The question finally came to a head when Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) called for the US to withdraw from Iraq. The Republicans called his bluff, and that of most Democrats, by forcing a vote on immediate withdrawal. The measure was defeated 403-3. Keep this in mind: everything Democrats have said about bringing the troops home from Iraq right away is just political rhetoric. (Well, except for those three idiots who voted to run away. They really mean it.) Even those calling for a specific timetable are only trying to claim credit in advance for the staged withdrawal that the President has long endorsed.

"Iraq's military, police, and border forces have begun to take on broader responsibilities. Eventually, they must be the primary defenders of Iraqi security, as American and coalition forces are withdrawn," Bush said in May 2004. Such a transfer of responsibility can only happen as the Iraqi forces train up to the task, and not on an artificial schedule imposed by politicians maneuvering for power half a world away. Common sense should tell anyone that informing the terrorists still fighting us in Iraq that we will leave on a certain date will only give them hope, and a great propaganda victory. I can just see the al-Jazeera headlines. "Great Satan Defeated! America Runs Away! Bin Laden Was Right -- They Can't Take It!"

Democrats know as well as anyone that we need to finish the fight in Iraq. They know we're winning. However, they also know that publicly acknowledging the truth about Iraq means defeat for them in 2006. They need America to lose Iraq, and suffer setbacks in the War on Terror, in order to win an election.

And, sadly, that's more important to some of them than any other consideration.

It is often said that travel broadens the mind, but I'm not entirely convinced that's true. Instead, I believe that travel actually clears the mind, allowing us to return home with a fresh perspective on old problems and a readiness to embrace new challenges. It allows us to discover, if we're inclined to self-examination, a new love of home and what it means to us.

It is all too easy, I suppose, to be overwhelmed by the lure of the new. It's in our nature to want to explore different places, view strange horizons, and taste all that other cultures have to offer. For Americans more than most other people, I think, a visit to other parts of the world has all of that, in addition to the lure of the old.

On a recent trip to Spain, I was as drawn as anyone to the older sections of Madrid and the small towns of the countryside. The twisting streets only fit for walking, the weathered, time-etched churches, the trendy new shops and bars housed in buildings raised when America was still a young nation all seemed to cast a sort of spell. I was moved by the almost untouched wilderness of the Gredos Mountains, through which Celts, Romans, kings and Conquistadors alike marched without the land even seeming to notice their passage. I was impressed by the generosity and friendliness of all the Spaniards (and Portugese) I met.

However... as much as I loved traveling to Spain, and as much fun as I had, no moment gave me quite the rush of emotion as the feel of the plane's wheels leaving the ground when I began my journey home.

It's not because I had difficulty speaking the language that I looked forward to going home, nor was it due to simple unfamiliarity with the country. It wasn't due to the different food, either. On the contrary, the challenges of getting along in a foreign land were exciting and entertaining, to myself as well as many of the Spaniards with whom I conversed. My mime repertoire has expanded to the point where moving to New York City, painting my face white, and doing the "Stuck In A Box" and "Walking Against The Wind" routines for donations is now a fallback career choice.

I once had to mime getting a blister to a clerk at a pharmacy while looking for bandages. Walking all over a city is hard work. When I needed to wash clothes, I stunned several life-long Madrid residents by finding (traveling via bus and sore feet) a self-serve landromat -- a thing which few Madrilenos had supposed even existed in their city. As for the food, I nearly bought a whole pig's leg to bring home, so I wouldn't miss the jamon serrano too soon. I'm sure my fellow passengers wouldn't have minded my boarding the plane with a pig's leg slung over my shoulder like Errol Flynn carrying a deer in Robin Hood.

As exciting and different as other places in the world might be -- and they are -- I will always only have one home, and that's the USA. Here is the place generations of my fellow-countrymen struggled to reach, to seize the opportunities offered -- then and now -- by life in America. I loved traveling to Spain, and look forward to seeing other parts of Europe and the rest of the world, but I know that I'll always be eager to return home, where I belong by choice.

With the world to choose from, I choose this place. I wouldn't condemn my descendants to retrace the journey my ancestors were forced to take by high taxes, struggling economies and oppressive governments -- all of which still exist in the places they fled, though the names have changed.

I met some Americans eager to apply for dual citizenship and move to Europe, drawn by the older, different culture and atmosphere. That's their decision, but could not be mine. I met even more Spaniards, however, who seemed eager to learn about and even come to America... especially after my setting the record straight on all too many issues upon which they've been misled.

When our Liberals tell us that all Europeans hate us, I have to wonder whether they simply hate watching Americans bashing their own country in order to curry favor with foreigners. For too long their only sources of information about this country have been Liberal movies, Liberal newspapers and Liberal visitors, all of which frequently disparage and deride the American culture and people.

As the internet culture continues to gain ground overseas, we will be able to exchange more information without the filters that have been in place for so long. The days of Liberal information control will finally come to an end, as long as we keep the United Nations from taking control of the internet. And I couldn't be happier to throw a few spadefuls of earth on the grave of Leftist disinformation from time to time, simply by not hesitating to speak my mind.

Click the image to open a larger version.

Click on the pictures below to open a larger version.

 
 
 
 

Click the image to open a larger version.

I'll be on vacation in Spain for the next two weeks, and will probably not be doing any serious blogging.

The Paris riots, well into their second week at this point, are the inevitable result of Socialism and multiculturalism run amuck. What else can one expect when Leftist policies prevail, racial division replaces political debate, and angry, largely unemployed subcultures are created in the name of "fairness?" French Socialism and reluctance to assimilate the growing Muslim population are the underlying causes of the spreading violence. A society with enclaves of resentful, culturally-segregated groups of people who are not held responsible for their own lives is a recipe for disaster. The recent events in Paris should serve as a warning to all Americans: stop the drift towards multiculturalism and Socialism before it's too late.

Multiculturalism had its roots in the Left's response to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. When you can't segregate populations by law, you persuade them to segregate themselves. The trend continues today with the Left's insistence that Hispanic immigrants should "celebrate their diversity" instead of celebrating being American. America was founded upon immigration, and drew strength from blending elements of various cultures into the mix, not separating them.

Whoever first coaxed people -- some of whom could trace their American ancestry back to the Revolution -- into wearing clothing, naming their children and even celebrating artificial holidays based on some mythical pan-African culture was a marketing genius. Democrats, more of whom voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Republicans, rushed to cast the blame for this subcultural seclusion on their political foes. Race pimps and hatemongers continue to feed the resentment of people who voluntarily isolate themselves from the mainstream, telling them they're being oppressed. The victim culture has taken on a life of its own.

Whenever a black person works hard to make a successful life for him or herself without playing on or pandering to victimhood, the multiculturalists show their true colors, as it were. Condoleezza Rice, for instance, was Provost of Stanford University and National Security Advisor before she was chosen to be Secretary of State -- America's representative to the world. In her current position, she replaced Colin Powell, who had previously been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the highest military position within the Department of Defense. Liberals have reviled both for not being "black enough," calling Rice "Aunt Jemima" and Powell "Uncle Tom."

Maryland's Lt. Governor Michael Steele has also been called "Uncle Tom" as well as "Sambo" for not embracing the subculture of eternal black victimhood pushed by the Left. Protesters even threw Oreo cookies at him during a debate. That's the end result of multiculturalism for you -- throwing food at people who don't toe the line on race-based politics, shouting them down with childish antics, not even allowing them to speak.

Socialism is the government taking over responsibility for feeding, housing and clothing you, managing your health care and retirement, telling you where to live and how, even raising your children. Socialist governments turn productive, responsible citizens into helpless infants. In order to pay for all of that care, the government increases the tax burden on its most productive citizens and corporations, reducing economic growth and forcing businesses to reduce the workforce. This, of course, increases the number of citizens dependant on government assistance, which increases the cost of caring for them. The purpose of a Socialist government is to perpetuate the government and increase its control.

When people are taught to revel in being cultural outsiders, they are bound to feel inferior and resentful towards the majority. That's what the Left wants. When responsibility for their own lives and decisions is removed, people also tend to feel inferior and resentful. That's what the Left wants. When a critical mass of isolated, resentful people is reached, the resulting explosion might tear the entire society apart. That's what the Left wants. We must take steps to avoid the impending dual train wreck of multiculturalism and Socialism, before it's too late.