Religions are largely kept together by the faith of the followers as opposed to proof. Whether it’s Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion, it’s not science or empirical evidence that keeps millions or billions of people believing, it’s faith. Indeed, religions are full of claims that our current scientific knowledge would say are impossible, but nonetheless, faith persists. Given horrific events that seem to fly in the face of what one would expect from a compassionate or just God, faith still persists. Believers believe, and they interpret events in their lives and the world in a way that comports with their religion. At the end of the day, religion is about faith, period.
By the above measure, liberalism is a religion. How else would it be possible that in the face of a history of demonstrable failure that there are those who continue to believe? Liberalism, in the form of outright Communism failed miserably everywhere from the Soviet Union to Cuba and a multitude of places in between. Yet the faith remains. Liberalism in the form of socialism has failed miserably across Europe as practically the entire continent is floundering in mounting debt, double digit unemployment and depressingly low growth rates. Yet the faith remains. Liberalism in the form of Democrat party policies have destroyed wide swaths of America’s landscape, from cities like Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia to black families that suffer from unprecedented rates of unemployment, unwed motherhood and tragically high rates of crime. Yet the faith remains.
Add willfully blind faith to presence of an anointed one among us and you get a cult. Which is exactly what liberalism and the virtual worship of Barack Obama has become:
Obamacare: Every day seems to bring new information that only adds to the understanding that Obamacare is a disaster of epic proportions. Yet faith remains.
Economic Growth: Barack Obama’s “recovery” has been the worst since the Great Depression and incomes have fallen over $4,000 per household since he took office. Yet the faith remains.
Welfare: Welfare has become so generous that in 35 states, it’s actually more profitable to sit at home and collect welfare benefits than it is to go out and find a job. In Hawaii the pretax wage equivalent of welfare benefits is $60,590 per year. In Washington DC it’s $50,820 while in Massachusetts it’s $50,540. Those are dollars that have to be paid for by taxes on those working. Yet the faith remains.
Race: In less than 50 years from the day Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial the United States elected a black man as president, twice! Yet race relations in the United States are worse than they have been in decades. Yet the faith remains.
On virtually every single empirically measurable measure, from education to economic growth as well as simple observable measures such as regulation and freedom, liberalism has been a failure in general and particularly so under Barack Obama. Yet, despite the fact that the consequences of this failure hurts the very people it’s supposed to help, the faith remains.
While the 1st Amendment enshrines the notion of freedom of religion, today the United States is being governed by the cult of liberalism, which seems more like a religion than many of the mainstream religions in the world.
It demands subservience to its policies and is willing to use the police power of the state to impose them while nonbelieving infidels must be marginalized. Speak critically of the Messiah and you are a racist. Disagree with gay marriage you’re a homophobe. Suggest that its culture and unwed motherhood that are ravaging black families and again you’re a racist. Advocate for limited government or state’s rights and you’re an extremist. Promote school choice and you don’t care about children. Advocate for lower taxes and you’re greedy. Champion free markets and you’re a selfish capitalist. Question man made global warming and you’re anti-science. Disagree and you must be discredited and vilified.
Liberals often champion a wall of separation between church and state. This may be the one time they might actually be right about something. However it isn’t Christianity that the country needs to be saved from, it’s the secular religion of Liberalism with Barack Obama as its messiah.
See author page
Smorgasbord
yes they elected him,
he would not have won without those votes ,
what DOES IT TELL?
BYE
JAY LENO
YOU’RE THE BEST
@Smorgasbord: I think Freeman hit on something there. People like to use it to either stir the pot, to “prove” they are morally superior to someone else, or as a scapegoat. It’s getting rather old. Like I’ve stated before, I live in the North and racism is alive and well amongst people who vote for both parties. Trying to blame racism on party affiliation, especially a modern one, is absurd unless of course it is the American NAZI Party or something. I’ve yet to see a single shred of evidence presented here showing someone currently serving in Congress or a modern president, from either party, advocating oppressing blacks.
@Tom:
Show me a list of those that did. I posted the two most notable, those being Thurmond and Helms. I also showed a republican that voted for the Civil Rights Act and became an incredibly hated figure by the left, Donald Rumsfeld.
Not just segregationist, although I concede it was a large part of his platform. Wallace also ran in the 1972 democrat primary with the results being:
• George McGovern – 1,729 (57.37%)
• Henry M. Jackson – 525 (17.42%)
• George Wallace – 382 (12.67%)
Wallace won Michigan and Maryland, as well as Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, and North Carolina. He was a populist as well as being pro segregation.
Shirley Chisholm won Louisiana and Mississippi. She was a black congresswoman. Pretty racist statements on the part of those two southern States.
Goldwater was pro-Civil Rights, anti-Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was a States Rights man and did not like the power the law gave to the federal government.
And yet State Houses and congressional delegations remained hugely democrat until 1994. How do you account for that? Southern democrats are not the only ones that voted for Nixon, or as shown above, for Wallace.
History has shown racial tensions were very high in the South for a long time, including after the Civil Rights Act. But it isn’t the only place. Look at the Philadelphia race riots, the Rochester race riots, the Buffalo race riots, Harlem race riots, Springfield Mass race riots, and of course the Watts race riots.
@Richard Wheeler:
Agreed. I don’t miss Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms in the least.
@Tom: Civil rights wasn’t the only issue in the elections in question. Here is what is arguably the most famous or one of the most famous political ads of all time. It had absolutely nothing to do with civil rights and probably did more to ensure Johnson’s landslide victory than anything else:
If you were to go back and look at the major political issues of the campaigns in question, you’ll find that civil rights gradually decreased as a prominent issue. In 1964 the prominent issues were civil rights, nuclear proliferation, and Vietnam. Johnson was able to fool the American people into believing he was the “peace candidate”. Had he been straight about his intentions in VN, the election would have been different. History has proved quite conclusively he was not the peace candidate.
The two prominent issues in 1968 were Vietnam and law and order. I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the fiasco called the 1968 Democratic Convention but it was all about VN and it split the democrats. People wanted someone who they thought would end the war. Nixon offered the best hope. The other issue was law and order. Again, I don’t know if you are old enough to have lived in and remembered the ’60’s but there were race riots, anti-war demonstrations, the hippies, drugs, and an anti establishment thumb your nose at authority mood amongst the youth. People saw that as a threat to traditional values. They wanted a return to those values and both Nixon and Wallace were seen as the candidates most likely to return the country to those values. Civil rights was a distant third as an issue. By 1972, it really wasn’t an issue at all.
When you look at the big picture as opposed to the more narrow vision of civil rights and race, you’ll find that the reasons for the South going red are multiple. The South is more conservative. They believe in smaller decentralized government as Aqua pointed out, tend to be more religious (the Bible belt ring a bell?), have a rich military tradition and are very pro military, tend to be anti abortion, are proponents of law and order, etc., etc. Of the two parties, the Republicans represent those views more than Democrats although they are arguably almost one party nowadays.
A read you (and probably Rich and anyone else interested in politics) may find interesting that goes a longer way to explaining the differences in political affiliation between the sections of the country than race and civil rights:
http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/421elazar.htm
@Aqua:
100 comments ago, I didn’t imagine it would be that difficult to establish just this fact, that the Civil Rights Act was a “liberal’ piece of legislation, and therefore would not be endorsed or supported by conservatives on political principle. I thought that would be easily agreed upon (let’s not forget I also mentioned economic policy, so I never tried to pigeonhole this as a ‘racial’ discussion.) The conversation that could have taken place might have examined whether I can rightly claim the apparent success of these policies as validation for liberal policy in general. But that was not to be. Some people here want to pretend that these pieces of legislation are actually conservative in nature. So no discussion is necessary, since everyone has decided to co-opt the credit. Apparently re-writing history is that easy.
@Aqua: Chisholm winning the 72 Dem. primaries in La. and Miss. is no surprise. As discussed, White Dems had fled the party to support Repubs.Goldwater 64 and Nixon 68 and 72. That left the Southern Dem. party with a high % Black vote. Highest % Black Dem vote in Deep South. This high % of Black vote in Deep South Dem. primaries remains today.
A.V. Thanks for your strong input.Hard to think of LBJ ever being considered the peace candidate. But remember the mushroom cloud behind the little girl in the anti-Goldwater add. Johnson was one mean SOB—and proud of it.Kind of a male equivalent of fellow F.A. Texan Ret.o5.lol
Tom Hang in there.
@Tom:
No, how about the concept of civil rights was a piece of legislation that was just right. It wasn’t liberal and it wasn’t conservative. As I pointed out to Rich before, the concept of certain legislation isn’t the issue, it is how we go about implementing it. Conservatives are not in favor of discrimination; if the were there is no way I could be one. I’m not white, my wife isn’t white, my kids are 100% mutts. How could I support a party that hated people of color?
Instead, liberal policies result in federal laws and regulations. Conservative policies should result in letting the States make the decisions. There is nothing stopping the Feds from driving policy and public opinion, that is what they are for. But liberals believe conservative States are backwards and don’t deserve the right to self rule. Just imagine of the roles were reversed.
@Richard Wheeler:
Seriously? Yet Louisiana didn’t have a republican governor until 1984 and Mississippi until 1992. I’m running the math and something isn’t adding up.
I’m out for the Labor Day weekend. I have seriously enjoyed debate. I have learned some things and hopefully everyone else has too. We are not that far apart as a people, the politicians are the ones that are out of touch.
@Richard Wheeler: I was a tad young for the ’64 campaign (but fairly strongly remember ’68, the riots, R. Kennedy’s assassination etc.). What was your impression of LBJ with regards to VN etc.? Was he trying to portray Goldwater as the warmonger thus making him the proverbial peace candidate?
@Tom:
Which is what I was going to originally debate you on especially Keynesian economics but the thread turned to racism. Perhaps another day.
@Tom:
Last I checked, Lyndon Johnson wasn’t a Republican, or a Constitutional Conservative, so I don’t have to square his actions with what I wrote. Incidentally, as Aqua points out, George Wallace was not a Republican. He started as a Democrat but when he didn’t get the Democratic nomination he ran as a third party candidate.
I was not being condescending but you certainly are. I described exactly how Constitutional Conservatives regard the Constitution. Aqua backs that up by noting that Conservatives support freedom and equality, which is why they fought for civil rights PRIOR to and indeed supported the CRA & VRA to overcome the segregationists of the Democrat party.
What has yet to have been mentioned is that there was also a good many northern Democrats who were segregationists, even in the great northern metropolitan areas, where Blacks and other minorities still live in racial enclaves. Where did the big city segregationists go? Nowhere, they stayed with the Democratic party where they continue keep minorities in nearly dead-end urban squalor. After numerous decades of Democrat majority control of the biggest cities, how do you square that the minorities and poor in the great urban areas are little better off. If you honestly look at the history of Progressives, you will find that racism and antisemitism was a common character trait of many in the socialist-progressive movement. Are you proud of these fellow progressives? How do you square that the Voting Rights Act was passed to stop the dirty poll election practices by Southern Democrats to disenfranchise minority voters?
Ditto
hi,
you sure know what you are talking about and you are very good at delivering it,
without leaving any doubts,
that one was good as the other,
bye
@another vet: In 64 campaign LBJ definately portrayed Goldwater as being a potential war monger and more likely to get us in a nuclear confrontation with Russia.
The build up in V.N. was initially slow. Seems Westmorland kept asking and LBJ kept sending.By 68 when I was there ground forces were substantial. By body count it should have been over.
Tet Offensive in Feb.68 was an eye opener.If they’d been so weakened how could they pull off such a co-ordinated attack? The message was clear. Johnson announced he wouldn’t seek re-election.
Nixon promised to get us out with honor and won a hard fought election over HHH in 68. The only Repub. vote I’ve ever cast for POTUS. Off and on peace talks as heavy fighting and high casualties continued on both sides. Slow drawdown began late 70 I believe. Should have bombed Hanoi as early as 67.
Aqua I’m thinking 72 Dem primary vote in Miss and La. heavily fractured with 4-7 on the ballot—-McGovern, Humphrey, Wallace maybe Muskie. and others. Chisholm could win with just the Black vote which was probably 25-35%. Enjoy the weekend. I too have learned on this post.
Semper Fi
Go Noles
Greg
on your 11
he is nothing more than a UNION LEANING DEMOCRAT,
WHO OBEY THEIR DEMANDS TO A TEE,
AND SPEND THE MONEY OF THE HARD WORKING PEOPLE,
JUST TO GET HIS POINT,
DOES THE PEOPLE have the many billion dollars to win his wars?
@another vet: #104
I can’t think of a better way to end racism. DON’T TALK ABOUT IT. Whenever a racist comment is directed to someone, I suggest very calmly saying something like, “It’s not my fault I was born the wrong color. I wasn’t given a choice.” It might make the other person think about it for a few seconds.
@retire05:Retire, you said to RW
I didn’t see what RW had said, but it seems as if you are referring to the Purple Heart Medal, if so, then this may be one case where I disagree with you. That medal is for someone wounded on the battlefield in a war. The hospital in Fort Hood is no more a battlefield than was the twin towers. While it is clearly terrorist activities, it is not a ‘battlefield’ and would demean the medal to those men and women that have been wounded on an ‘actual’ battlefield. The same as the Congressional Medal of Honor is for action on the battlefield. Let’s save the battlefield awards for persons that actually serve on battlefields and not denigrate them by awarding them gratuitously. If that’s not what you were referring to, I apologize for disagreeing with you.
@Tom: #69 Tom
embraced Civil Rights! LOL. yes, but what brand of civil rights? Remember at the time, the REPUBLICANS were the party of Lincoln, the ‘ultimate’ civil rights leader and the Southern Democrats switched over to that party because the persons that were advocating for the blacks were not the party of Lincoln. Sometimes people ignore facts to make a point. I think that is the case here. The Southerners became true civil rights advocates by joining the party of Lincoln.
@Aqua: #76 Aqua:
As a true “southerner”, (born in Georgia and have lived in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia and Florida) I take offense to your list of “confederate states” . West Virginia damn sure is not one. (as you well know, they formed the state to separate from the south and remain union) Though there were 13 stars on the Battle Flag, there are only 11 Southern states, the ones you listed that are not, is, Kentucky, W. Virginia, Oklahoma. Please use the correct list in the future.
@Redteam:
So what you are saying is that unless a soldier is killed, or wounded, on a foreign battle field, they don’t deserve the Purple Heart?
Let me ask you these questions:
Are we at war with jihadists?
Did Nidal Hassan admit he was, in fact, a jihadist?
Do you think that just because the location of the battle was on U.S. soil it does not meet the criteria for a “battle field?”
We took the war against jihad to the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nidal Hassan brought that war to Texas. And at least Texas has decided to do the right thing by those wounded and the surviving families of the jihadist attack on our soil. Too bad the Obama administration doesn’t want to do the same thing, instead labeling a jihadist attack on U.S. soil as “workplace violence.”
Better get used to the war being here, Redteam. It ain’t gonna get any better as long as we have the “weak” horse in the Oval Office.
Redteam
hi,
I should point out that the event itself was happening on a battellfield by way of aggression
happening without warning from a TERRORIST SHOOTING NON STOP, KILLING 13 UN ARMED SOLDIERS AND WOUNDING OTHER, WHO THOUGH OF HIM AS A BROTHER IN ARM ,THEREFOR THEY NEVER SUSPECT HIM HASSAN TO BE AN ENEMY BEFORE HE CAME TO KILL SO TO PREVENT HIS TERRORIST BROTHER IN ARM AND RELIGION COMPATIBLE TO BE KILLED BY THOSE SOLDIER IN READINESS TO LEAVE FOR AFGHANISTAN WITH HIM UNWILLING TO FAKE FURTHER IS ALLEGIANCE TO AMERICA,
YES IT WAS A WAR-ZONE EVENT TO MERIT THE PURPLE HEART TO ALL OF THEM DEAD AND ALIVE WOUNDED FOREVER, FROM HAVING BEEN UNABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THEIR BROTHERS IN ARMS,
THEY DAMN WELL DESERVE THAT PURPLE HEART,
BYE
RETIRE05
WHAT IF WE ALL CHIP IN TO BUY THEIR PURPLE HEART,
WHERE CAN WE ELSE WHERE GET THEM ?
AND WE WILL GIVE IT TO THEM FOR EXTENSIVE BRAVERY ON A WAR ZONE,
GIVEN BY THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA WHO RECOGNIZE THEIR COURAGE,
LETS GET WORKING AT IT,
BYE
@Redteam: The party of Lincoln? The armies of Lincoln had decimated the South Who you kidding The South hated Lincoln,
White Southerners voted Democratic solidly until 1964. You think they celebrated Lincoln’s Birthday. In the LBJ 64 landslide the Deep South turned solidly Blue for Goldwater who had coincidentally voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This mass exodus, this White Flight from Dem. to Repub. accelerated in 68 and 72 and remains in place today.
Do you really think Southern Whites switched parties to EMBRACE the tenets of Abe Lincoln? Be serious.They jumped ship to side with those who wanted to slow the progress of Civil Rights–The MID TO LATE 60’S Repub. Party of the South.
“The Party of Lincoln” I’ve often wondered how big a party is Lincoln’s B-DAY in the solid Repub Deep South? As big as Jeff Davis or Robert E, Lee?
In the South is Lincoln considered one of our greatest Presidents?
jOHN KERRY
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WAR,
IS IT WHEN YOU SOLD YOUR BROTHERS IN RETURNING FROM VIETNAM?
THEY WHERE SO PISSED OF FROM YOUR RETURN ACCUSATIONS, THEY THREW AWAY THEIR WELL EARNED MEDALS,
THE MILITARY ARE EXHAUSTED AND YOU ARE NOT, SO SPARE US YOUR FALSE DIATRIBE,
THE VIETNAM WARRIORS HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THE TREASONOUS WORDS FROM YOU,
SO SPARE THEM YOUR LIES
@retire05:
Exactly, except the word “foreign” is not necessary. For example, John Kerry got one of his ‘Purple Hearts’ for a scratch, or something, not related to combat actions. He was not entitled to a Purple Heart medal for that. I have no problems with the military coming up with a medal to be awarded to persons wounded by activities not in a declared war, but the Purple Heart is not that medal.
I don’t think it was a battle field. I think it was a military hospital on a military base in the US. When and if the US government ‘declares war, formally, against all ‘jihadists’ and declares the ‘world’ a battlefield, then I would concede.
There are many military personnel that have received injuries on a battle field that did not receive the Purple Heart medal because the injury was not a direct result of enemy actions.
I just re-read the requirements for awarding the medal and I don’t believe anyone at Fort Hood qualifies, (or the World Trade twin towers either)
Retire05, I respect your opinion, but events such as the awarding of Purple Hearts to John Kerry have soured me against persons not deserving, being awarded as tokens of sympathy.
@Richard Wheeler: RW, I believe you are a college educated person, and should be able to read and interpret a little better than your response indicates. No where did I say the South loved or respected Abraham Lincoln. I think the Southerners that switched (including me) did so because the Southern Dimocrats became liberal socialists and only embraced the blacks to get their votes by putting them on welfare and giving them handouts. It had nothing to do with ‘civil rights’ and everything to do with socialism and liberalism. There are two factions in the South, those that think you are supposed to work and support yourself and help their neighbors (these are basically Republicans) and those that think the government is supposed to support them (this would be the Southern Dimocrats) It just so happens that the party that most closely aligns with the objectives of most southerners is the party of Lincoln, it has nothing to do with Abraham Lincoln( probably the one single president that did the most of any president to destroy the country, well, maybe except Obama)
Do I think Lincoln was a ‘great’ president? Absolutely not.
@Redteam: Party of Lincoln is a pejorative? Never knew that but strangely enough it makes sense coming from a Southerner.
The rest of the country East and West consider Lincoln one of our greatest Presidents. Particularly his fellow Republicans.
BTW Comparing Obama to Lincoln. Most Americans would say you couldn’t pay BHO a greater compliment.
@Richard Wheeler: The only ‘fellow’ Republicans Lincoln has are dead ones. I didn’t intend ‘party of Lincoln’ to be pejorative, only using the name of the political party, Republicans. If you take it that way, that’s your problem. I notice you didn’t include the North as a part of the country that thinks Lincoln was great. I would likely agree.
” Most Americans would say you couldn’t pay BHO a greater compliment. ” I don’t think he likes being compared with Republicans.
@another vet:
Agreed. I think I’ve dwelled on one particular reason (which I still believe carries weight) because of the direction this conversation has gone, but I don’t deny the other reasons you and Aqua have cited.
@Aqua:
As always, thanks for your willingness to engage in an honest and, while sometimes heated, always respectful exchange of views. You and others like AV always give me a ton to think about, and challenging my own preconceptions is a good motivation for wanting to engage intelligent people with different viewpoints.
Rich, as always, it’s an honor and a pleasure. Enjoy the holiday weekend.
@Redteam:
I’m not going back over this well trod ground. And based on Rich’s expert dissection of your ridiculous claims regarding President Lincoln, I hardly think it’s necessary.
@Tom: @Richard Wheeler: @Tom: You recognize you’d be swimming upstream, eh? Actually, I don’t think I made any ‘claims’ about Lincoln one way or the other.
@Redteam: I assure you BHO loves being compared to The Great Emancipator and fellow Illini. Northerners like myself consider Lincoln one of our greatest Presidents. And why not?
Tom I Echo everything you said in #131. If I had a son——- naw that’s a little much. Enjoy a great New England weekend.
@Redteam:
What exactly is a battle field? Seems to me it is where one group of people gather to fight another group of people, using guns, bombs, et al.
So as Hassan yelled “Allah Akbar” as he shot our soldiers, letting them know that he was committing an act of war against them, would it have made Fort Hood a battle field had our soldiers been allowed to shoot back, as happens on any other battle field?
Just because that dimwit, Clinton, signed an EO disarming our military while they were on base doesn’t mean they were not, on that horrible day, any less in the fog of war. But I guess if one party doesn’t claim “war” even though the other party does, in our modern nation, we are not at war and a Soldier of Allah is not acting like a warrior.
I frankly don’t care what Secretary of State Lurch did in his previous life. He was a slug then and he’s still a slug. Nothing has changed except for the last few days he has become the nation’s biggest hawk (wonder if he check with Hanoi Jane about that change). His pathetic actions have nothing to do with any other soldier, especially the soldiers of Fort Hood who were not allowed to defend themselves, or fight back, due to the rules of Bubba Clinton.
The ROE have changed, Redteam. If not for us, at least for our enemies. Terrorism is not a civil crime. It is a tactic of those who have a political philosophy different than ours. And we better wake up to that fact pretty quick (you think 9-11 would have been the alarm) or we are going to see another Fort Hood.
Billions of dollars when to those injured on 9-11-2001, as well as to the families of those lost. The least we can do for the survivors of Fort Hood is provide them as much as we can. Our military deserve that just as much as the civilian casualties of 9-11-2001.
@Richard Wheeler: You think the millions of relatives of the hundreds of thousands of dead Americans as a result of what Lincoln did, would agree with you? There were more Americans killed in the Civil War than almost all other American wars combined. I don’t think that’s an admirable achievement, especially since the ones doing the killing were also Americans. And for those that say slavery was ended because of the civil war, they should review history. Slavery had been outlawed in several states before the war started and would have ended soon without the war. The war was about States Rights, slavery was just a tool.
@retire05: Retire, we can go around in circles about what a ‘battlefield’ is, I would put it as, when you encounter forces of a ‘declared’ enemy. While there have been many proclamations, to my knowledge, the United States has not ‘declared war against a religion’ and therefore, an action by a member of the muslim religion is not a member of an ‘declared enemy force’. If you would, read the ‘requirements for awarding the Purple Heart Medal and tell me which provision you think the medal should be awarded under. As I said, maybe they should create a new medal for those injured by nuts (including jihadists) but do not denigrate the value of the medals that have been awarded to those injured in battle. Yes, I know the injured people may feel as if they are entitled, but a little disappointment won’t hurt them. Are you also advocating that anyone that was injured/killed in twin towers on 9/11 be awarded a purple heart? I served in the Navy and there are a couple of medals I felt like I was entitled to, but by they rules, I was not and I did not try to make them change the rules just because it hurt my feelings. Military medals are given for various things and anyone wearing one they are not entitled to ‘by the rules’ denigrate the meaning for everyone that got one for ‘the right reason’. Would you be opposed to them creating and awarding a medal to any American wounded by the actions of people that ‘don’t like you’, or whatever? You said: ” Terrorism is not a civil crime. It is a tactic of those who have a political philosophy different than ours.” So, are you saying that a ‘political’ crime is not a ‘civil’ crime? If we need a medal for ‘those wounded by persons with different political philosophies’ then we should create one for that.
I’m not just trying to be disagreeable, but to me, if someone gets a Purple Heart, it should mean something and not just be a ‘token to feel good’.
@Redteam: #119
Normally I agree with you on things. As far as THIS Purple Heart issue is concerned, If it is done wrong, I want it done wrong in the right way. In other words, I would rather give it to those who don’t deserve them, than to not give it to those who do.
I’ve never been on a battlefield, or even overseas during war, so I am no expert on battlefields.
Does the situation make any difference if the enemy sent someone over here to infiltrate us, then kill as many of us as possible? That’s the way I see it. The killer was in contact with his leader (I forget his name) right up to the time he acted. Was he a sleeper agent? If so, does that qualify as a battlefield? What if the enemy sent in 20 agents to infiltrate and kill. Would it be a battlefield if 100 soldiers died, and 500 were injured?
To me, if one of our enemies killed one of us anywhere in the world, even if the soldier was walking down a sidewalk sightseeing, that is a battlefield. That soldier signed up to fight the enemy anywhere in the world if they had to. Even if they are an office worker, the enemy CHOSE the battlefield. The enemy that killed him or her, CHOSE THAT AREA AS THEIR BATTLEFIELD. If the enemy kills one of ours in their own home, that is a battlefield to me. That’s my opinion, and I agree with you that I just want to state my opinion and not go any further.
I don’t know if I heard this before, or if I made it up: If I am wrong, I want to be wrong in the right way.
After I wrote the above, and was proofreading it, I happened to think about my son in the Air Force. What if he had been one of the ones killed or wounded? Your telling me he shouldn’t get the Purple Heart. A soldier gets the Purple Heart if they get shot in the arm, but if my son is shot in the heart by a lone assassin and dies, he gets nothing?
What about the soldier who charged the killer and was hit six times while doing it? Was that a battlefield? How many lives did he save by taking those six shots? Should he get some kind of medal? Do you think he feels like he was on a battlefield?
FYI. John Kerry supposedly got the Purple Heart when he fired a rocket propelled grenade in training, and it landed too close, and something hit his finger. It was said that all he needed was a bandage. His commander said he doesn’t remember any request for the Purple Heart crossing his desk.
they are ready to attack now, and they will put ISRAEL IN DANGER BY DOING IT,
OBAMA DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT OUR ALLIE ISRAEL WHO WILL HAVE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, WHEN THE AMERICANS LEAVE.
@Smorgasbord: I agree with most of what you said. Kerry clearly didn’t deserve a purple heart. The requirements basically are that you get wounded in an action by an enemy that is a direct result of activities. For example, if you fall out of a military airplane while flying over a battlefield and the airplane is not taking any actions in furtherance of the war and nothing hit the plane and you are killed, you do not fulfill the requirements. Another strange one, if you are killed on a battlefield, by friendly fire, and the person that fired the shot was NOT firing at the enemy(I guess he drops his weapon and it discharges), you are not eligible. I’m not holding this position just to be contrary, I’m holding it in respect for the persons that got the medal for ‘the right reasons’. Do you think they want the government just handing out medals to just anyone whether they fulfil the requirements or not? Suppose you genuinely won a Congressional Medal of Honor, for some action such as like Audie Murphy did, and then you find out that someone was awarded one for tripping a guy that was going to the bathroom to get a weapon, or something? Wouldn’t that cheapen your award? I have no problem with the military creating a medal for persons that are wounded as a result of terrorist actions. But that doesn’t describe the Purple Heart. When I was on an aircraft carrier I got an infection on one of my toenails and had to have medical treatment several times. Would that qualify me for a Purple Heart if it had been in a war zone? No. Anyhow Smorg, don’t want to belabor the point, just want to do the right thing. I certainly respect your opinion.
Redteam
you know I like your comments and respect your intelligence,
there is one thing that I feel strongly about, is that the survivors
feel that the purple heart is deserved, and they are soldiers leaving for AFGHANISTAN,
AND THE FACT THAT THEY WANT IT AND STRONGLY FEEL THEY ARE DESERVING IT
IS GOOD ENOUGH, they ask for nothing else,
what they went through is horrible, 13 dead and other wounded and
OBAMA SAY IT’S WORK RELATED, THAT IS FAR OUT,
I’m sure the other will understand that and they don’t feel diminish
with their own purple heart medals,
this is a terrorist attack on all those young people, the least they can do is give them what in their guts feel to deserve,
whoever is sour about it has to recover or live with it,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I don’t believe that is one of the requirements for receiving the medal. If I had received the medal, for being wounded on a battlefield, I would not want the medal awarded to someone else that is not in the military or was not wounded on a battlefield by an enemy. The Government should create a medal for those injured in terrorists actions and award it for this kind of circumstance.
Bees, I have no problem with you stating your belief, I almost always agree with you and enjoy reading your comments. Keep it up.
@ilovebeeswarzone: $124
Only the military can award a Purple Heart, or any other military medal. It is like only a police department can give an officer their badge. If I remember correctly, all medals are numbered to make it easer to get them back to the recipient if lost. I don’t have any to look at. You can buy different medals at pawn shops and other places, but they wouldn’t mean much to the recipients, since their government didn’t give it to them.
There is a politician who is, or already has, introduced legislation in congress to award the medals to the soldiers. All of us can write our politicians and ask them to go along with the bill. I’m going to do it right now.
@Smorgasbord: I would be in agreement with doing that, and they should call it the Congressional Purple Heart Medal, it would be a civilian medal. I think that’s a great idea.
@Redteam:
So you are saying that the soldiers at Fort Hood were NOT encountering a force of a ‘declared’ enemy, i.e. a jihadist? That’s a pretty big stretch there, Redteam.
Ah, well then, there you have it. Nidal Hassan, who had been consulting with a known Al Qaeda operative, was simply a “Muslim” and not an enemy of our nation, right? I guess that whole “SOA” (Soldier of Allah) thing on his business card was just for grins.
No, we have not “declared” war against Islam, although it seems that Islam (or a great percentage of its followers) have declared war on us. Our political correctness is going to get more Americans slaughtered but hopefully, some day, we’ll come out of our stupor and realize that we are in a centuries old religious war and call it what it is.
What I am trying to tell you was that the actions of Hassan was not just a simple crime; it was an act of war. Hassan was not just some gangbanger with a Saturday night special. He was, as he claimed, a soldier of Allah, a jihadist who was working to kill the enemy, U.S. soldiers. When he fired the first shot, he created a battle field, where he was engaging the enemy of jihad.
Answer this; had those soldiers been armed, and allowed to engage the enemy (Nidal Hassan) would you then consider that area of Fort Hood a battle field? Or are you of the Obama/Holder mindset that this was just a simple case of workplace violence and not an act of war against our military?
@ilovebeeswarzone: #126
The soldiers didn’t throw their medals away. John Kerry said he threw his medals over the white house fence. Some time later, it was found out that he still had them. Then he said he threw the ribbons that came attached to the medals over the fence, but kept the medals. A long investigation into the matter found out that, as usual, the mix-up was Bush’s fault.
Redteam
you have to admit, there is ground for a good debate,
and thank you,
Smorgasbord
yes but I also heard that some VIETNAM VETERAN DID IT ALSO
SOME TIMES AGO,
BYE
@retire05:
No, I would not. And no, it was not ‘work place’ violence. It was the act of a US Army soldier committing an act of insanity/terrorism. It was not an act of war against our military, it was an act of terrorism by a member of the US Military. He was tried as a US Army active duty person, as he should have been.
Do you also sponsor the Purple Heart for the civilians that were shot in the act, or just the military persons?
@Smorgasbord: And those were some of the milder things that traitor Kerry did at the time.
@Redteam: #140
Same here, except you didn’t answer my question whether the soldier who charged the killer and was shot six times in doing so should receive any medals. I believe there are several who should receive some kind of medal for bravery.
I’m going to guess that obama is going to do everything he can to keep the civilians who helped protect the kids with their bodies from getting any civilian medal.
One good reason to give the soldiers medals that the president would have to award is that I know how much obama hates the military, and I have thought many times that him giving a medal to military personnel would be like Bush having to give one to a Muslim terrorist. You can see it in obama’s face, and hear it in his voice.