Michelle Malkin describes President Obama's reaction to yesterday's ambush of four Marines perfectly.
The contrast between the Left's reaction to the Charleston killings and yesterday's is, as always, illuminating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the attack was "insidious and unfathomable." The Navy secretary should know what is unfathomable (1 fathom = 6 feet). But "insidious" seems too uncomfortably close to reality for an Obama appointee to utter:
Insidious - a danger that develops so gradually and imperceptibly as to be well established before it can be prevented.
Merriam Webster gives this example of insidious: "Most people with this insidious disease have no idea they are infected."
You can infer the insidious disease Mabus is speaking of is Muslim mass immigration into America's heartland.
Mark --
That makes perfect sense. (And ha, yes, "fathomable.")
What I've never understood is why it's not considered treasonous when an American citizen goes to fight for a foreign country or entity. A number of Somalis who's settled in the Twin Cities area have evidently gone off to fight for ISIS. Given that they are now an official enemy of ours, shouldn't these people be convicted of treason? In England, more Muslims have signed up fight for ISIS than for the UK. Why does this plain evidence of allegiance always seem to get swept under the carpet?
My thinking is that we have a President who is a Muslim sympathizer. We have Muslim terrorists in this country (and worldwide) attacking innocent people.
-birdie
Birdie --
Nothing wrong with sympathizing with any group, but this President's biases are all too evident. After six and a half years in office, he still won't even say the words, "Muslim terrorists." He favors blacks over whites, as evidenced by his comments about trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, et al, and by his domestic policies, all of which represent a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks. (Obamacare, sending "tax refunds" to those who never paid taxes, this new enforced suburban integration plan, freeing more prisoners, etc.)
"What I've never understood is why it's not considered treasonous when an American citizen goes to fight for a foreign country or entity."
I hope a legal authority weighs in on this question. My understanding is that for a charge of treason to hold up against someone three conditions must be met:
1) The person must "owe allegiance to the United States," which I assume means he is a US citizen.
2) He must actively take up arms against the United States, or give aid and comfort to the enemy.
3) A formal state of war must exist between the United States and the enemy.
The last condition is the one that's not currently operative. Not even the Vietnam War was a war by the strict legal definition; therefore, Jane Fonda and the Roman Catholic priests Philip and Daniel Berrigan weren't guilty of treason. But that is just my lay opinion.
That's partly why I'd consider voting for Trump (not that I'm super crazy about him), that is if he stay's the course and is serious about being President. What I don't get is why Obama favors blacks - he has white ancestors - what's the deal with that?
-birdie
Mark --
That all sounds right. You're far better informed on this than I am. It's unfortunate that there's not some procedure to exile, if not prosecute, US citizens who do go fight for other countries.
Birdie --
I'm sure Obama identifies as black, not mixed. (As does just about anybody in this country who is of mixed ancestry.)
Post a Comment