Palin outlines doctrine for use of force, picks new foreign policy adviser
posted at 7:40 pm on May 3, 2011 by J.E. Dyer
Politics being a funny beast, we tend to readily accept the idea of a retired state governor, sometime pundit, and non-candidate for president having a “foreign policy adviser.” Ben Smith of Politico reports that Palin this weekend unloaded what he calls the “neocon” advisers who have been with her since the 2008 campaign (when she was assigned them by the McCain organization), in favor of Hoover fellow and political author Peter Schweizer, who wrote two seminal volumes on Reagan’s handling of the Cold War (Victory and Reagan’s War), and writes at Breitbart’s Big Peace. (H/t: Israpundit)
This is informative news – and on the whole, good news. As Israpundit observes, Palin outlined a doctrine for the use of force in her speech to military families in Denver Monday evening (2 May). He quotes the following passage:
A lesson here then for effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say, in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity.
See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision.
I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women, America’s finest, into harm’s way, I believe that our criteria should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be. I can tell you what it should be in five points:
First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.
Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.
And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.
Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.
And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.
When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we’ll provide them with support and help them win their own freedom. We’re not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We’re always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world.
But with strength, and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world. Because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re gonna prove that free and healthy countries, they don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries.
The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.
Many volumes could be written on the distinctions between the prevailing ideas on the use of force overseas, but this passage of Palin’s speech, combined with her taking on Peter Schweizer as an adviser, argues for a more Reaganesque than progressive-activist view. I don’t find the “neocon” label particularly useful; Reagan was advised by neocons from the original group dubbed with that label in the 1970s, and so were both Bushes, but this did not make for perfect consonance in their approach to using force overseas. “Neocon” had a particular meaning when it was first coined to describe people of a generally liberal background, especially on social and domestic issues, who held hawkish positions on the Cold War. That meaning has long since gone by the wayside.
To call something “neocon” now is not to put it in the context of any consistent thread in policy. Bush 41, for example, used force for regime-change in Panama in 1989, but didn’t use it to regime-change Saddam in 1991. He restricted himself to evicting Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. He also dispatched military force to supervise the delivery of aid to Somalis, with no intention of resolving the chaotic political situation there – this last enterprise an open-ended use of force on the progressive-activist model.
Reagan used force to regime-change Grenada, ironically in the middle of dealing with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which was a consequence of improperly scoping the purpose and requirements of force in a particular situation. Again, the latter (the Marine barracks debacle) is more characteristic of the progressive-activist model – which is what is currently developing in Libya.
Bush 43 used overwhelming force for regime-change in Iraq, and induced regime-change in Afghanistan with less than overwhelming force, but both were cases of politically justifying absolute regime-change and pursuing it without temporizing. Unifying Afghanistan under new rule has proven to be the insoluble problem in the aftermath, although the regime-change of Iraq has been much more heavily criticized throughout.
Which of these episodes were the result of “neocon” policies? There are plenty of people today who call the Libya intervention “neocon,” because it is expeditionary and related only indirectly to US security. Samantha Power and Susan Rice wouldn’t thank those pundits for calling their humanitarian intervention a “neocon” operation.
Schweizer is a fan of Reagan’s approach, which had no compunction about trying to undermine oppressive governments, but did so by supporting freedom movements where they were indigenous, and arming the insurgents under Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. The commitment of US force was a matter of coming to blows very rarely under Reagan: besides invading Grenada, Reagan conducted a reprisal against Libya in 1986 after the Berlin nightclub bombing, and another one against Iran in 1988 for mining the Persian Gulf and inflicting mine damage on USS Samuel B Roberts (FFG-58). The US armed forces had a high and very active profile during the Reagan years, but the actual use of force was considered necessary very seldom.
I tend to share Israpundit’s view that Schweizer’s advice will involve the sparing and summary use of force – in a shooting role. If you haven’t read his books on the Reagan approach – a comprehensive one that emphasized political and economic campaigns against the Soviet Union – I can highly recommend them. Meanwhile, compare Palin’s five points to the “Weinberger Doctrine,” a rubric that played a major role in US decisions about the use of force in Desert Storm.
As is typical of her, Palin is talking in the terms on which we need to be carrying on the public discussion of national security, our national interests, and interventions overseas. There has been a very long and extensive national dialogue on these topics over the last 100 years; we have never settled most questions as if there were a single answer. Palin – alone among potential GOP candidates – is harking back to the philosophical discussions launched by presidents and candidates like Reagan, Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson (agree with him or not, he launched a substantive debate that colored Democratic positions for the next 40 years), Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt.
I believe people intuit the need for this debate, as overseas interventions seem to be stalemated in Afghanistan and Libya, and the world begins to behave as if there is no US power. Palin apparently recognizes the need to talk about fundamentals – and love her or hate her, I don’t see anyone else out there doing it.
J.E. Dyer blogs at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions” and as The Optimistic Conservative. She writes a weekly column for Patheos.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Yeah, I am. I have the quotes from Jefferson, Madison, and others from the early 1800′s expressing a distaste for the collusion of religion and government that they saw transpiring. THEY wrote the Constitution, BoR and DoI… THEY know better what the intent was. Do I need to requote them?
Not everyone who came over here to early America wanted to do away with the collusion of religion and government. It was these people who broke the rules and why we have the quotes we do from Madison, Jefferson and others seeking to clarify the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
You already have the right to display your religious symbols and artwork at your house, in your church, in museums and convention centers and anywhere there is private property. I characterize it as a need because you apparently feel that all those other places aren’t a big enough expression of religious fervor.
The only reason you and others wish to push religious artwork and symbols into government buildings is because you think it somehow validates your beliefs and “codifies” our nation and government as a “Christian nation”. Something the establishment and free exercise clauses were designed to prevent.
SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 3:24 PM
.
Dang blast it, dude ….. you and I have have had this conversation before (like what, a couple days ago?).
There is no freedom from religion, stated … OR IMPLIED … in our Declaration Of Independence, or Constitution.
.
Anti-theists do not have a right to be “FREE” from the sights and sounds of Christianity being practiced and/or expressed, in, on, or about Public property.
(real atheists don’t care one way or another)
listens2glenn on April 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM
.
Nope, and nope.
listens2glenn on April 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM
That says all I need to know. I can quote just as many that say otherwise. They founding fathers were concerned with religious liberty and protecting that liberty. They were concerned with the State usurping that belief system to use with its own nefarious ends as was done in England. They definitely did not believe in restricting religious faith in public.
You are lying if you claim otherwise.
njrob on April 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM
You got the first part right, but I haven’t said they were for restricting religious faith in public. How hard is it to understand? I’ve said it I don’t know how many times now, they weren’t for US Government buildings being made into places of worship and advocacy. This is completely different from what you keep saying I’m saying.
Some people, like yourself, in those days apparently disagreed with the intent of the Constitution and tried shoehorning religious services and worship into government activities. They were wrong for doing so, and as the quotes I mentioned illustrate, Jefferson, Madison and others called them out on it.
If the intent of the founders was to make government more religious, why was the state church of Massachusetts and Connecticut outlawed in 1833?
SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 5:46 PM
So the government is to make sure everyone has freedom of religion, but if they don’t have a religion they have to choose one? How is freedom from religion not implied. Explain that to me… I’ll wait expectantly.
SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 5:58 PM
.
Atheists are allowed to choose “none of the above”.
.
What atheists (who really aren’t the problem) and anti-theists (who ARE the problem) cannot do is demand that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) NOT be expressed ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, whether by spoken word, literature, singing, or in the form of static art displays.
listens2glenn on April 5, 2013 at 9:17 PM
They voluntarily choose to do so according to their own State laws. Nothing in the federal government said otherwise as was the case from all the years from 1787 to 1833 or do you just imagine those years didn’t exist?
Seriously, how can you write these obvious falsehoods with a straight face?
njrob on April 5, 2013 at 9:20 PM
.
What the hang does “making government more religious” mean?
There has NEVER been, nor will there ever be a demand that atheists aren’t allowed to serve in government.
listens2glenn on April 5, 2013 at 9:24 PM
If it is Federal lands then they shouldn’t, or they should allow equal time to all religions, not just the “particular” ones you happen to endorse. I find it funny that you say “Christianity in particular”, …as if it holds some special place here in this country. It may be near and dear to a lot of folk, but that is no reason to show it preference.
Hint: Do you see how saying that is asking for a form of preferential treatment?
SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 11:18 PM
Are you aware that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well? That no church and state government was supposed to be working hand in hand?
The REASON that the Massachusetts state church issue and other religious oversteps weren’t addressed until the early 1800′s was because they had a lot to do to standardize things and undo some of the laws the states passed early on in the first 25 years of our nations existence.
You DO realize that the former colonies/now states weren’t all buddy buddy and on the same page all the time, right? That some states were more religious than others, some more liberty driven, etc?
Seriously, how can you claim I’m the one writing obvious falsehoods with a straight face while you ignore the history of our country. I’ve corrected you time and again with facts and quotes, etc and you just ignore it like it doesn’t exist, all the while spouting your ad hominems at me trying to claim me discredited. As if you had that power. LOL!
Dude, read a book please.
SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 11:38 PM
.
Nope, it shouldn’t get “preference”. They should all be allowed.
.
Response to Hint: it gets preferential *censorship* from the anti-theists. That’s why the phrase “in particularly” was used
listens2glenn on April 5, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Seriously? My home state of Texas has a rule on the books that says that one cannot run for office in the state without first affirming their belief in the existence of god. It doesn’t have to be the Christian god, although in my state someone not Christian doesn’t stand a chance when pitted up against the religious voting bloc.
There are 8 or 9 more states that still have like phrases forcing the belief in a god on state office holders.
You can’t say there has never been, and those laws very well could be enforced again… I believe it used to be 33 states in total but the last 8 or 9 hold outs still haven’t removed the language.
But congrats on not commenting on my comment about the State of Massachusetts state Congregationalist church, which bled over into Connecticut as well.
SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 11:44 PM
No they don’t. Christianity isn’t picked on… That’s just your perception of things because the majority of followers here are Christian, so OF COURSE atheists are going to talk in that context. If 80% of the US is Christian, then the majority of complaints will be about Christians and the odd things they do, and try to do in the name of their religion in the public sphere.
SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 11:47 PM
Have you read the previous 3 pages of this discussion or are you just plain ignorant? We’ve been debating back and forth as to the application of the 1st Amendment applying to the States. That is no matter as a display is recognition of a faith, not establishment. But you’re just an obnoxious anti-theist. You hate people of faith and wish to banish our beliefs to somewhere shameful and hidden from public. Bet you love homosexual marriage though.
njrob on April 5, 2013 at 11:52 PM
I don’t hate the sinner, I hate the sin.
SauerKraut537 on April 5, 2013 at 11:56 PM
.
Can anybody here at hotair (includes, but not limited to
SauerKraut537) document this?
I just may have to stand corrected on this, ’cause it’s news to me.
.
.
Can you link me to any documentation on this?
But I won’t get to it till tomorrow, though.
(actually, I’m running like a coward ’cause I don’t have any answers)
listens2glenn on April 6, 2013 at 12:00 AM
Of course, I’ve participated in the conversation, obviously. I’ve read people’s interpretations of our nations history and cried at the obvious embellishments and self interested rewriting of history going on.
You guys are so wrapped up in your religion that it’s demolished your intellectual honesty.
So, no, I’m not the ignorant one here nrjob. I think you got that covered pretty well with your confirmation bias going on. ;-)
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Google is your friend…
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 12:03 AM
State Constitutions that discriminate against atheists
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 12:14 AM
You poor fools. :cry:
tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 8:03 AM
No surprise that you’d quote a biased source that would deliberately leave out context and depend on people not going to the actual source material.
For example, they quote a part of the Maryland Constitution pre-1970 when it was amended (SO IT DOESN’T DISCRIMINATE), but leave out the part that they’re specifically speaking about the religious and also leave out the part cited below:
Maryland Constitution
Your foolish cite claims this shows bias against atheists (even though it’s been repealed) when it does nothing of the sort. This clearly showed, even though Massachusetts had a State official religion they weren’t going to discriminate against other faiths at the time. They gave EQUAL PROTECTION. What a concept.
YOU LOSE.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM
LOL!
Are you a dingbat? EVERY source is biased. I’m glad you exhibited some scientific rigor on this subject, now if only you could apply the same rigor to your religious beliefs!
Did you miss the part where I said that there USED TO BE like 33 states with rules like these on the books? Of COURSE some state constitutions have changed, and I’m glad Maryland decided to change it, bravo for them!
Let me ask you this. In your “investigation” of the link I provided (which might be years old, I didn’t create the page), did you read about how it was the Federal government that made the states not enforce these parts? That it was on the states to change them? Why are the 7 or so other states listed on that page still leaving these rules in place?
Not that they can be enforced, and thank god for that, but you know as well as I that people of unbelief have very little chance of overcoming the religious in a ballot box, so while the laws/rules aren’t enforcable (meaning that an unbeliever can run), they’re enforceable at the ballot box.
You say they gave equal protection but why didn’t they say Christians, Muslims, Jews? Why only Christians? That sounds unequal to me…
Why did it take until 1961 for these state constitutions to be changed? Why are there still some states with these religious requirements, like my home state Texas?
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM
You need to read the history on Massachusetts and their state church…
Some state legislatures REQUIRED all citizens in those states to be members of a church, and some had official churches, such as Congregationalism in some New England states such as Massachusetts. This eventually ended in 1833 when Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish its church.
So where’s the equal protection in that? HAD to belong to a church or you didn’t get your citizenship… Sounds unequal to me
And who was it who forced them to change? Jefferson, Madison, etc… The writers of the US Constitution who knew the intent of the documents better than you apparently do.
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM
The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835–1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office.
Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids “any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God” from holding public office.
Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM
I’m afraid you’re wasting your time SauerKraut, as logic is an anathema to the religiously inclined. You may rejoice, however, in the knowledge that religious superstition, and its related social conservatism, are quickly going the way of the dinosaurs in this country. Let Listens2Glenn and njrob pop off all they want, your side is winning the war.
Bandit13 on April 6, 2013 at 11:37 AM
That decision is incorrect. It’s unenforceable as per Article VI of the Constitution.
If the Court cannot even get the reasoning behind such a basic decision correct, I don’t see how you can use it to claim you are right. Try again.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Typical anti-religious bigot.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 12:42 PM
I know full well what was required. That shows they were permitted to have a State Church which counters all your arguments about the Constitution preventing a Church for individual States. The State itself decided to take away that right. That right is not GRANTED by the Federal Government.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 12:44 PM
LOL! That’s all I can do with you anymore nrjob…
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 12:50 PM
No, that shows they overstepped the intent of the US Constitution and were called out on it. They had to be reigned in.
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM
No. It shows the court used an incorrect argument to reach the correct decision because religious tests are not permitted as per Article VI of the Constitution.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Dipstick, all you have yo do is read before popping off next time…
The Court did not base its holding on the no religious test clause of Article VI.
In Footnote 1 of the opinion Justice Black wrote:
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Are you being intentionally obtuse. Do you read anymore?
I STATED that the ruling was INCORRECT not in CONCLUSION, but in REASONING. I thought you read the previous pages? If you did, you’d know that Justice Black HATED CHRISTIANS and deliberately went out of his way in rulings to attack them and minimize their influence.
Read again, since you obviously missed it the first time :
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM
You worship an imaginary being that has killed thousands of people, advocates slavery and misogyny, supports killing homosexuals, and gives people hemorrhoids as punishment…And I’m a bigot? Don’t you have a hungry unicorn to attend to?
Bandit13 on April 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM
I repeat, you’re an anti-religious bigot. People killed thousands. My God does not advocate slavery as he gave us Christ as our redemption, misogyny is not advocated as two flesh become one and I could no more be abusive to my wife than I could to myself. Your last two remarks show you to be an idiot as well.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM
I look forward to your people taking credit for the millions killed under the Soviet reign where they demanded a separation of church and state. Carry on.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Is this your rendition of the Gish Gallop? Trying to overload me with data? Trying to make me write a book in response to all that blather?
LOL!
So people didn’t like Hugo Black’s opinions while sitting on the court so he’s a anti religious bigot who inadvertently introduced the separation of church and state in 1947 based on his hatred of Catholicism (even though he himself was a Christian)! Is that all you have? Speculation?
Hugo Black was a great champion of the Constitution. I applaud him for that.
That it took until 1947 for someone to step up and say what needed to be said is somewhat surprising. It should have been done a long time ago, but confirmation bias being what it is and knowing that people favor their religious beliefs, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that it took until 1947 for it to happen.
The wall was always there nrjob, Hugo Black didn’t create it out of thin air, he just articulated it in a way that finally got the ball rolling the right way.
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM
The 30 Years War in Central Europe, waged between Catholic and Protestant, resulted in over a third of the population in Central Europe dying.
Millions more than the millions you claim atheists killed have died throughout history from religiously based wars. Wars over interpretations of the same religion, wars between different civilizations with different gods they worshiped. All wars have had some level of religious overtone to them.
“For god and country!”
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 2:24 PM
You’re right…what was I thinking…Your barefoot insignificant other is tending to your unicorn…And I know your fictional god raped his own mother, blah, blah, blah. Like it or not, your side is losing the cultural war, and you know it, don’t you?
Bandit13 on April 6, 2013 at 2:28 PM
You prove yourself a liar with your words. You know full well there is no magical “wall” between church and the government. There is law protecting the religious and the church from the Federal Government establishing a state church which would infringe on the rights of the Church and the people. There is also the right to free exercise of religion that you constantly ignore. You have no right to be free from religion because you don’t like it. Tough.
Black was a bigot and hated Catholicism. He was afraid of the Church taking power so he wrote his own personal views into the Court’s rulings. That does not make them Constitutional law. That makes them bad law. They are no different than the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson. But you know this already. You just choose to ignore it because it suits your own biases.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 2:33 PM
Wars are fought in the name of things all the time. That does not make them God’s work. Show me where Christ would have encouraged these acts. You cannot because they are the works of men and not God.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM
You are a vulgar bigot and your hatred shines through with your words. Care to put your real name on the internet so all can know how you truly think?
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM
OK nrjob, you’re entitled to own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
I’ve given you ample proof that this nation is a secular nation, I’d say that you not accepting it because of religious bias is your problem, not mine, but it IS my problem.
There is no magical wall between church and state. There is a documented wall between them.
Black was a bigot! The sky is falling! Black was a bigot! There is no wall of separation between church and state! Black was a bigot!
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 2:44 PM
What would Jesus NOT do?
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 2:47 PM
You’ve ignored all the facts in this situation. You’ve ignored that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were passed yet states still had official religions. You’ve ignored that those documents were valid, yet religious events were still conducted in government buildings. You’ve ignored that previous Supreme Court decisions not only mentioned God, but explained how integral he was to our nation’s forming and foundation. You’ve ignored that Black had his own personal agenda that he implemented while ignoring the actual law.
You’ve chosen your side. It is not the side of truth. I will speak out against you whenever I have the opportunity. Good day.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 3:01 PM
LOL! The states JOINED the United States, and by joining agreed to the US Constitution with its wall of separation between church and state… They signed on to what that entailed. That the states had previously passed Constitutions that had statements and laws that ran counter to the US Constitution is well known. Yes, they had State religions, but once they signed on and agreed to the US Constitution that all changed for them. It just took, in some cases, decades for the states to change their laws, or have them changed for them.
Yes, religious events took place in government buildings, this is history. But they were wrong to do so.
Supreme Court decisions that not only mentioned god, but explained how integral he was to our nation’s forming and foundation? Provide me links, until then I call BS.
Your claims about Black’s “agenda” sounds just a bit conspiracy theorist, don’tcha think? You’re not by chance the 9/11 truther/birther type are you?
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM
My last response because you just choose not to read. It’s been mentioned no less than 4 times in this thread.
Holy Trinity v United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Read it. Learn it. Love it. Christianity is a part of the life blood of this nation. We are not and have never been a secular nation.
Only death comes to those without faith.
njrob on April 6, 2013 at 3:35 PM
Apparently YOU don’t read…
In this court decision, the court held that a minister was not a foreign laborer under the statute even though he was a foreigner.
The case is famous for Justice Brewer’s statements that America is a “Christian nation.”
But Justice Brewer published a book in 1905, titled The United States: A Christian Nation, in which he DISAGREED with the interpretation of the court’s decision as a statement or endorsement by the Supreme Court that the United States is officially in law a “Christian Nation”:
Have fun chewing on that. I’m sure it’ll come out like the rest of the crappy logic and understanding you’ve flung my way.
SauerKraut537 on April 6, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Classic! Thanks for sharing.
Bandit13 on April 7, 2013 at 1:15 AM
Somehow I missed this Friday morning, and I went offline for the entire weekend around noon on Friday.
I realize that converation on this thread has ended, but I still wanted to come back and say that I a attended an event in the last 12 months where the Mayor of a state’s capital city held a “unity” event and had a Christian prayer been offered (one wasn’t), there are those who would have called that prayer unconstitutional, yet this unity event featured not one, not two, but three different Islamic speakers including:
1) a boy who did the Islamic call to prayer and chant (in Arabic). This includes specific claims about the supremacy of Islam and who knows what else.
2) a woman who prayed in English but used “code phrases” that sound innocuous to those who don’t know what they mean to the Islamic community, but clearly indicate an intention to make Islam the dominant force in our society
3) a man who was an Imam, and who talked about how great it was to be accepted in that city, as compared to being treated with suspicion in other places. That basically, if you didn’t fully embrace Islam in your community, you had a problem.
Again, Christian prayers are actively silenced, while Islamic prayers are welcomed with open arms.
ITguy on April 9, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Thank you for sharing.
njrob on April 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4