Staff & Sling

Joseph E. Hébert, Ph.D.

98119 N 3745 Rd
Okemah, OK  74859
918 623 3078

A Few Good Questions

I noticed that after the attacks of 9-11 the Democrats offered dozens of bills over the years of the Bush Administration, each with one goal. They wanted to declare a date-certain when our troops would come home. In other words, they wanted, and tried repeatedly, to set a date when our enemies would be able to declare victory, not unlike they did in Vietnam. They even dug up the word "quagmire," trying to bring it back in vogue. And if that weren't enough, they sought every opportunity to protect our enemies, even to the point of giving them civil rights and civilian criminal court trials. At the same time they were looking to see our leaders tried for war crimes in international tribunals (in other words, trying to subvert our national sovereignty), they were calling for Miranda rights for enemy combatants on the field of battle.

Of course their treatment of our enemies was in stark contrast, not only to our sovereignty and our leaders, but to our troops as well. The Democrats took every opportunity to demonize and vilify, even criminalize our troops. Oh, to be sure, they had to lie about atrocities that never happened to do so, and they did so without reticence. They made false accusations of murder and rape in order to defame and demoralize our troops. It was very reminiscent of John Kerry's testimony to Congress about ..., that's right, you guessed it..., Vietnam.

Perhaps you remember that they actually had one of our own soldiers thrown in prison. Remember that young corporal, a pregnant mother-to-be. They threw her in prison, not for raping or murdering civilians, not for torturing or dismembering prisoners, not for mutilating enemy corpses, but for taking embarrassing photos of enemy combatants.

They then used the incident, along with more lies about offenses to the Koran, to whip our enemies into a frenzied rage. And all the while they were conspiring with their comrades in the media to censor phrases like "Islamic Terrorist," and images of the planes attacking the Towers, for the explicitly stated purpose of not angering us.

So is it any wonder that my first question is simply, plainly, whose side are they on? Who do they want to win? Their words notwithstanding, their actions make unambiguous and irrefutable the answer. But that isn't the only question I have.

When President Obama's term is over, will there be more or fewer Al-Qaeda-friendly Islamic nations in the world? And will America be one of them? There hasn't been a single instance of the Muslim Brotherhood organizing a crowd to protest a secular government in the Middle East that President Obama didn't lend his voice to the effort. But when the people of the Islamic Republic of Iran rose up in protest President Obama kept out of the fray. Is it just a coincidence that secular state after secular state in the Muslim world has fallen, with President Obama's help, to the Muslim Brotherhood, but the the Islamic Republic of Iran stood strong?

If President Obama isn't "their guy in the White House," why is it only an atrocity when Muslim civilians are being killed? Why isn't it a crisis when Muslims are slaughtering Christians in countries all over the globe? Why don't we care about those atrocities, those acts of genocide? If our President, the Marxist with the Muslim name, really cares about governments killing their civilians over nothing more than peaceful protests, why don't we have a no-fly zone over Tiananmin Square?

Well, it's May 2011, the Arab Spring is proceeding, and President Obama just turned on our ally and friend, Israel, siding with her Arabic enemies over the 1967 borders.

Wait a minute. Let me rephrase that statement. President Obama just stabbed our ally and friend, Israel, in the back by siding with her Arabic enemies over the 1967 borders.

Wait, that's still not quite right. Let me try one more time. Madrasa-educated Barak Hussein Obama just stabbed our ally and friend, Israel, in the back by siding with her Arabic enemies over the 1967 borders.

I guess it's a good thing he's not "their" guy in the White House or anything. Imagine what he could do if he were a Muslim pretending to be a Christian so he could do harm to the infidels. Why then he could ..., well, he'd ....

Exactly what could, what would, he do differently, here or abroad?