Two must reads *UPDATED*

American Thinker is a site I check regularly, at least twice a day.  It’s not just that the editors are kind enough to publish my work occasionally.  It’s because the articles that appear there routinely range from really good to out-of-the-park stupendous.

Today, there are two that fall in the latter category.  These are the kinds of articles that shouldn’t just be read, but that should be emailed to everyone you know.  Indeed, the one regarding socialism should be required reading in every American classroom.  So, without further ado, please, please, please read and discuss and forward:

What’s Wrong with Socialism, by Joe Herring


It Isn’t Political Correctness, It’s Shariah, by Pamela Geller

UPDATE:  Add military analyst Steve Schippert’s All the King’s Horses (about Afghanistan) to the list of things that will widen your horizons today.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Marguerite

    I have a question:  Given the military career of Hasan, why has the word treason (or sedetion ) not been used in anything I’ve read?  Or if it has, I’d like to know where. 

  • Ymarsakar

    Marg, the Left doesn’t want to promote any validity to reason on the part of their allies because they might get some blowback sooner or later. The only legitimate traitors are conservatives, and those dangerous PTSD veterans of course.


    I’d like to add another must read to Book’s list for the day. Be sure to click on ‘read the rest’ at the bottom of the article.
    Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism consultant to law enforcement agencies and the military, said he expects more attacks like the one that occurred at Fort Hood because the Pentagon so far is unable to produce a “threat model” that correctly identifies the threat posed by both internal and external jihadism….

  • Ymarsakar

    <B>One thing is for certain. The egg rots in the sun while the king and his men are astutely scratching their chins in strategy sessions and floating endless streams of conflicting leaks for sensing public approval.</b>
    Every American death that can be produced from this is a celebration of Obama’s good judgment, clear temperament, and heart warming intentions.

  • suek

    >>…why has the word treason (or sedetion ) not been used in anything I’ve read? >>
    Because people want to consider it insanity.  Because people are unwilling to recognize that we are actually at _war_.  You sort of have to be at war to have a person be guilty of treason.  Because people are unwilling to recognize that islam is a political entity as well as a religion – and that we are in conflict with the political aspect of islam.  It’s against our principles to identify a religion as bad – but because of the dual nature of islam, that’s what we have to do.  I don’t know how to separate them – but in effect, that’s what Bush tried to do.  It’s what my husband does – they both see islam as a religion.  The religious muslims are the “good” muslims, the political muslims are the “bad” muslims.  The problem is that if a muslim is a not so devout muslim, he remains a religious muslim, but if he becomes a “better” muslim – a more devout, more religious muslim, he slips into the political muslim stage.    That’s where we run into problems.  Not recognizing that fact is going to be the death of us…
    Many muslims probably came to the US to escape the mandatory islam that controlled their country of origin.  However, many came as infiltrators.  How do we tell the difference?  (And of course, this is besides those who become converts to extremism as the result of the efforts of the infiltrators who are doing their job)

  • Ymarsakar

    We used to consider the American indians “subhuman” and we put them on reservations, killed them and took their land….but that didn’t make us communists.

    I agree with Kilmer…communism and fascism are polar opposites.</b>

    We used to have propagandists tell us that America’s Original Sin of Slavery prevents us from having the right to judge the crimes of mass murderers or the sexual slave trafficking of Islam.

    We still do. But that’s not the only thing that has been placed in a pleasing and convincing message.

    If communism and fascism are polar opposites, geographically separated at the North and South ends of the globe, then obviously somebody must have rewritten the history of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia’s relationship, for there are still accounts that Hitler was allied with Stalin in dividing up Lebensraum (for the Germans) and absorbing the capitalist class (for the Soviets) into the new Equality of the proletariat.

    It is also obvious that the psychological desire to see certain factions as being on the left or right, so called ‘opposites’, is a tendency to go into denial about these very real factions with their very real killing fields of numerous millions of people you won’t ever care about. If they are polar opposites, you won’t ever have to worry that they will converge. You can deal with the problems separately, as if they were isolated and thus less dangerous. That isn’t so, however.

    For example, those that wanted to be free from the Shah of Iran, Cuba’s status quo, and Rhodesia’s white/black divide would obviously be polar opposites of Khomeini, Castro, Che Gue, and various black militant terrorists and murderers in Africa. But of course, they were allies of the same. And that’s something it is better not to think of, is that not so.

    The world is said to be getting smaller and smaller: more interconnected. If that is true, then polar opposition starts to matter less and less. It is no longer a valid or even useful excuse for dealing with political faction. Those that favor totalitarian systems of thought and government are not polar opposites of their like minded political opposites. While the Germans valued order and discipline and wanted more living room, the Soviets valued class and economic equality, but both accomplished their goals in the same manner. Both had the same enemy, whether they were banker Jews or capitalist middle class business owners. An alliance was of mutual benefit. And the eventual fallout was also logical and expected. No totalitarian system can tolerate competition, especially not other totalitarian and statist systems that divide people’s loyalty with foreign concepts such as the “Volk” or the “Race” or the “Capitalist class”.

    “We” did no such thing. I did not treat Native Americans as sub-human. You may confess your own sins and guilt on this subject, but you cannot claim to speak for me or anyone else, even, especially those that aren’t alive.

    The Nazis themselves said why they were killing the inferior races like blacks and what not. I did not have to invent motivations for them, as Leftist scholars must invent motivations for basic human strife in the American continent. There’s no need to invent evil intent for evil systems, only a need to cover it up. If you must invent atrocities to blame upon your enemy, then that enemy must have overwhelming good characteristics that one must offset.

    <B>But that doesn’t make Hitler a communist. </b>

    The logical argument isn’t false, but it is incomplete. If redistribution of wealth by killing and stealing from the enemy of the state doesn’t make its practitioners a communist, then the mass murders of Stalin and the rest of his goons in Russia, done to redistribute wealth accordingly, would also be incapable of making Stalin and the rest Communists. But they were Marxists and Leninists and Stalinists: Communists.

    Your logic is incomplete and thus erroneous. If mass murder under the justification of the social good isn’t socialism and communism, then what is socialism and communism.

    Socialism and communism are not polar opposites. Any more than my right hand is a polar opposite of my left hand because they are symmetrically opposed, geographically located across a distance, or each doing something completely different than the other. They (Socialism and Communism) both work to accomplish similar goals, the goal of a society in which a few have the right to kill anyone else judged inferior or below them.

    What makes socialism socialism is its particular ideology and dogma, the different aspects it teaches as Revealed Truth, inspired, not by God, but the gods of ambition and power, cruelty and strife. What makes communism communism is its ideological foundation and history: geographically connected to Russia and its various philosophers and political leaders. Regardless of what you say in describing them, it doesn’t change what they are. They are what they are, regardless of what anyone, including me, may wish to describe them as.

    But that’s not what makes socialism or communism bad. That isn’t what makes socialism or communism evil. What makes them evil is that both are simply different flavors of doing the same thing, to get to the same destination. The destination is evil. The means used to get to that destination is also evil. That is what is wrong with socialism.

  • Ymarsakar

    The Demoncrats have been practicing treason in this nation for awhile. It would be very dangerous for them to start throwing rocks from stone houses. They don’t want to talk about treason because they are guilty of it. Thus they must ensure that treason prospers, so that no one will wish to call treason treason. Instead, treason will become “speaking truth to power” or “telling the Administration what it doesn’t want to hear, but needs to hear” or “giving the American people the information they need”.
    Btw, my first post: reason=treason

  • Marguerite

    Don’t mean to work this to death, but I was looking for some of the more conservative writers to bring up and discuss treason, certainly not the left.   How could a military man who fires on U.S. soldiers not be guilty of treason, regardless if the country is at war?  He is – in fact – aiding and abetting the enemy.  Suek – do you mean to say that the military wishes it to be insanity for what he stands accused??

  • suek

    >>Suek – do you mean to say that the military wishes it to be insanity for what he stands accused??>>
    Depends on “who” you mean in the military.  Don’t get me wrong – I love the military.  I’ve been a “camp follower” all my life.  As daughter, wife and mother of military men, I know that military men are at the core, just men.  There are terrific ones, and there are average ones, and there are political ones.  If you want rank, you have to be one of the political ones.  Especially during peace time.  We’ve had a lot of peace time in the last half century.  The warriors of Vietnam are mostly gone – Petraeus is one of them.  There aren’t a lot of others.
    What “political” means is that you have to be attuned to the civilian themes.  In today’s army, that means you have to remove prejudice towards any particular ethnic/religious/sexual  group.  Bush – unfortunately – set the standard.  “Islam is a religion of peace” ” Our enemies are religious extremists – not the religion of islam.”  Got that, Mister???  The military does _not_ discriminate against the religion of islam.  So…if a person is a religious Christian, we don’t discriminate against them.  And if a person is a religious muslim, we shouldn’t discriminate against them.  The military does _not_ discriminate against muslims.  So – when you have an obviously defective military person who belongs to a group we specifically do _not_ discriminate against, how do you get rid of him/her?  What the military did was put him in a position where they thought they could minimize any damage.  If my understanding is correct (and it may not be – info has been spotty), he should have been eligible to retire within a couple of years.  My guess is that they were holding their breath, so to speak, and hoping that within a couple of years, this particular problem would go away.
    We have about 2000 muslims in the active military (if the crawler on Fox News had correct info), about 500 in the Reserves, and another 500 in the National Guard.  We need them to help us interface with the muslims we work with in our military fronts.  Most of us are Christians or atheists of western cultural heritage who have no understanding of muslim sensitivities, cultural and or religious requirements, and that can be a real problem when you have to get cooperation from muslims so that they don’t work against you.  And obviously, there’s the language thing.
    So…the problem, as I see it, is that that we haven’t yet officially recognized that islam is both a poltical system _and_ a religion.  And that a really strong, observant, deeply religious muslim is very likely to have slipped into the political realm – which makes him an enemy, because in islam’s political scenery, only islam can exist.  Any other political/religious system must be destroyed or made subserviant to islam.  What we need and can deal with are the “Christmas and Easter” muslims – if you’ll excuse the _very_ mixed metaphor – but not the 5 times a day daily prayer muslim.   They can infiltrate our forces with their “religious” members, while deceiving us about the fact that the infiltration includes those who are actually our enemies.  The simply religious ones are cover for the political ones.  The innocent provide cover for the guilty.
    So – in answer to your question, yes, the military wants him to be “insane” – otherwise, they have to look at every muslim in the military with suspicion of treason in their minds – and they really don’t want to do that – quite aside from the politically correct thing.  It would be poisonous to morale to have to regard every muslim as a potential terrorist – and yet, that’s probably what needs to be done.

  • suek

    >>quite aside from the politically correct thing.>>
    And you can _not_ overlook the politically correct.  CAIR is very aggressive in suing whomever in their mission to infiltrate out culture and prohibiting any criticism of islam.  A man who is the target of suits based on discrimination, or of being responsible for such suits is unlikely to win many friends in positions of high power in the civilian government  that will be responsible for his promotion.
    Be very aware of CAIR.
    And the fact of the matter is that critics of islam are attacked – legally by CAIR, or physically in other places.  People in public venues are aware of this.  They can attack Christians (verbally) and nothing happens – we have free speech, don’chaknow – but they don’t attack islam or muslims because if they do, unpleasant things happen – and they wish to avoid that.  The NYT even stated that they chose not to print the mohammed cartoons because they didn’t want to risk harm to their employees.  How craven is that?
    Both of these blogs will keep you aware of the political issues and progress of islam in Europe and the US.
    Gates of Vienna

  • BrianE

    Steve Schippert’s article should give everyone, including conservatives, pause. Yes, Obama is looking for a excuse to get out without looking like the appeaser he is. I didn’t see a recommendation in the article, only more evidence that Karzai’s government isn’t the solution. There is no one to turn the battle over to. Even if Obama concedes and doubles down on the number of troops, the left is going to defund the military. Think Somalia over and over again. Get out and commit to seeing Iraq through. Has what has happened in Iraq had any influence in Iran? 

  • BrianE

    What are we doing in Afghanistan?
    Helping establish a government whose laws include sentencing an Afghan citizen to death for converting to Christianity?
    Do you remember what finally got him off? He was declared mentally inbalanced and not because freedom to practice religion is honored.
    Is this what we want American soldiers defending?,2144,1945495,00.html

  • suek

    It’s a dilemna, isn’t it!  How do we prevent the Taliban and Al Qaeda from returning without supporting a government with whom we have nothing in common?  Nature abhors a vacuum – so what do you do?  The population is what it is, and short of decimating that population, we aren’t likely to succeed in replacing the government or the religion.
    If we leave, the Taliban _will_ return, and in all probability, so will Al Qaeda…free to establish training facilities with which to cause their worldwide destruction at will.  Since we don’t want to allow that, we’re stuck with an option we don’t like.
    Any ideas on another option?

  • suek

    Short of nuclear, that is…


    We can start with wiping out every poppy field, which funds AQ and the Taliban.

  • suek

    That’s a good step…!