General Petraeus Warns Against Freedom of Speech? Say it Ain’t So!


General David Petraeus may very well go down in American history as one of our country’s most brilliant military leaders, right up there with Generals Washington, Grant, Crook, Patton, and MacArthur. His leadership and vision during the Iraq War, especially in regard to the “Surge,” subsequent successes against Al Qaeda in Iraq, and with counterinsurgency operations in general, will no doubt be studied for decades to come. If there is one American who can inspire confidence among the public that what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, has any chance of success, it’s this guy.

That’s why I cringed when I saw that General Petraeus entered the national debate over free speech and the burning of the Quran by Pastor Terry Jones’ Dove World Outreach Center. Somebody should have pulled the General aside prior to his remarks and told him “don’t go there.” The last thing America needs is for General Petraeus, of all people, to call for an American NOT to exercise his Freedom of Speech rights. General Petraeus? Say it ain’t so!

According to General Petraeus, Jones’ Quran-burning would be exploited “for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S.,” and making the military mission more difficult. The most compelling argument the General makes is that the lives of American soldiers would be put at risk.

Forget for a moment that the reasons given by General Petraeus why Pastor Jones should not burn the Quran are, on their face, seemingly valid! That’s not the point. Burning a Quran, or a Bible, or an American flag, whether you support such behavior or the politics behind the threat, act, display, or utterance or not, is constitutionally protected speech! Do you understand what that means? It means that it doesn’t matter how many folks don’t like it, it doesn’t matter how many people it offends, it doesn’t matter how many people it drives to acts of conniption, craziness, or violence, Pastor Jones has the right—the freedom—to do so. This is what makes America America! This is what separates us from the rest of the world.

Even more disappointing than General Petraeus’ foray into domestic and constitutional politics, is the fact the he bites on the enemy’s (and the anti-war Left’s) most insidious propaganda lie about America’s war effort. That through the “actions” of the United States: invading Iraq, prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, the accidental killing of civilians in air strikes, and the burning of a Quran by a no-name pastor in Florida, Muslims the world over will become “enraged,” creating “new terrorists” and causing irreparable harm to our image while endangering the lives of American soldiers.

That this is the single greatest lie perpetrated by the anti-war Left, and successfully exploited by our enemies, is irrefutable—proven by the fact that this fallacy has been repeated so often that it has become media, political, and international gospel—to the extent that there are those who think we shouldn’t kill terrorists, because we only create more terrorists! Do you see the idiocy in this argument?

For one thing: the attacks on September 11, 2001 occurred before we invaded Iraq, before the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, before any Muslim civilians were accidentally killed by any errant bombs, and before any pastor decided to go around burning Qurans! In other words, there were plenty of “enraged Muslims” willing to murder American men, women, children, soldiers, etc., and they needed no extra incentive.

Secondly, the anti-war Left, pro-immigrant rights groups, and Muslim community can’t have it both ways. For years they’ve stated that Islam is a “peaceful religion” and that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and non-violent. Am I to understand then that photos of hooded prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Quran-burnings are suddenly going to make these “peaceful” Muslims hate America and turn into terrorists? So what is it? Is Islam a religion of peace, and are the majority of Muslims peaceful, or not?

The fact of the matter is that Islamist terrorists, and terrorists-to-be, are NOT coming from the “peaceful” Muslim camp—they already hated America and were on the road to jihad, and, as I mentioned before, they’re not going to be swayed whether we burn Qurans or not. They will still come after us. They hated America before 9/11, and they will always hate America. Even President Obama, despite all of his touchy-feely outreach efforts to the Muslim world, is still “Public Enemy #1” on Al Qaeda’s hit list, trust me. Contrary to what General Petraeus thinks, American soldiers aren’t going to be put in any more danger by the burning of Qurans than they already are just by being American, being non-Muslim, and being there!

At the core of the lie that angering Muslims only creates more terrorists, as well as the sad arguments that General Petraeus and others have laid out, is this: that by burning the Quran, fighting the location of the “Ground Zero” mosque, and criticizing Islam, you only sow the seeds of fear and hate, which are hallmarks of our Islamist enemies. And if you give in to fear and hate, somehow, Al Qaeda and the terrorists “have won,” and Americans have surrendered our values.

This is the biggest propaganda lie of all, and the one that the terrorists have used to their greatest advantage. Don’t criticize Islam, don’t criticize us, don’t fight back, don’t resist Islamic culture, because if you do, you’re anti-religious, racist, and imperialist, and you’re oppressing poor Third World peoples. And we’re going to exploit your liberal, Western post-WWII collective guilt, and make you feel like you’re surrendering your values, and shredding the Constitution of the United States…while we (Al Qaeda and the Islamists) do whatever it takes, and by all means necessary, to destroy you!

And you ate this bunk up, General Petraeus! Just keep your mouth shut, sir, and take the fight to the enemy like you’re supposed to.

Because you see, the truth is actually the reverse! Let this wacky so-called pastor burn all the Qurans he wants, let hippies burn the American flag, let lefties call Bush a criminal and a murderer, let American Nazis and skinheads march through downtown Skokie, and let the Klan wear their hoods. Because when this happens here, in the USA, and the world gets to see Americans exercising their Freedom of Speech—no matter how much it offends other Americans—and the world sees that no one is arrested, persecuted, imprisoned, censored, stoned, blown up by a suicide bomber, or has their head sawed off, guess what?

The terrorist lose, and we win.

Legal Immigration vs. Illegal Immigration: America’s Dilemma


Sadly, the immigration debate in America today has been politicized, marginalized and split down party lines to the degree that true “reform” seems nearly impossible. The Left has portrayed Republicans, Tea Partiers, and all those opposed to illegal immigration as racists and bigots. While those on the Right have branded all those demanding “immigration reform” and “pathways to citizenship” for illegal immigrants as, at best, liberal proponents of “amnesty,” big government, and the welfare state, and, at worst, anti-American lefties who secretly want to undermine the “traditional” (read: white) fabric of this country. The truth, curiously enough, lies somewhere in the middle, and is being obscured by the fact that there are plenty of Americans, from every political stripe, who are pro-legal immigration, yet are staunchly anti-illegal immigration.

America has always had a love-hate relationship with its immigrants. Since the dawn of the good ol’ US of A, the Americans who were already here (ironically, the multi-generational descendants of immigrants themselves) were highly suspicious of those newly-arrived folks, dying (sometimes literally) to become Americans too. There are plenty of historical, military, and social reasons for this Nativist fear of “outsiders.”

The most obvious reason for 18th century American distrust of foreigners was that prior to and during the time of the American Revolution, foreigners came to our shores or encroached into our territory usually to attack us or create mischief (think French and British soldiers, their Native American allies and insurgents, Hessian mercenaries, etc.). The African slave trade further complicated things socially and politically for Americans, as half the country was opposed to slavery, and a great many were uneasy just having the Africans here at all, thanks to sensationalized slave revolts in the Caribbean.

In the 19th century, Americans feared, loathed, and tried to limit the immigration of all types of national and ethnic groups, including Irish, Chinese, Italian, Jewish, Polish, and Russian, most of whom were fleeing one famine, revolution, or other man or naturally-made disaster. Eventually these immigrants of old acculturated, assimilated, or integrated themselves into American society to one degree or another. They learned English, as did their children. They fought our wars, ran for office, and soon were part of the fabric—the so-called “melting pot”—of American society. Americans grew to love them, or at least “accept” them, because eventually they were us and we were them.

And they were “legal,” as far as immigrants could be in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They registered in places like Ellis Island or the Texas border, and most of them became law-abiding new Americans. And they really did do the labor-intensive jobs Americans “didn’t want” because back then, most Americans with high school diplomas had good-paying jobs at factories, warehouses, and manufacturing plants, shipyards, dockyards, and in construction. All of the jobs were here, most of them were held by Americans at “American wages,” and it looked like it was going to be that way for a long time.

Fast-forward to the 21st century. America is at war and the economy is in shambles. Traditional blue collar jobs are extinct due to international outsourcing for cheap labor. And a new type of immigrant has caught the ire of frustrated Americans—the “illegal” immigrant. As far as a great majority of Americans are concerned, illegal immigrants have disrespected our borders and our laws, they have overburdened our social services system, clogged our hospital ERs, taxed our police and fire services, failed to learn English, failed to fully assimilate or acculturate, and are having babies—so called “anchor babies,” automatically getting “unearned” citizenship for their offspring—which they are having at a higher rate than traditional Americans.

Meanwhile, Americans are seeing another class of immigrants who have done everything right, entered the country above-board, have patiently endured the paperwork, long waits, and labyrinthine bureaucracy to go through the naturalization process to become legitimate, legal Americans. Nothing stirs the patriotic fervor of natural-born Americans like seeing legal immigrants, en masse, with their hands held up, waving small U.S. flags, taking the oath of citizenship in convention centers around the country.

And who should Americans be cheering, supporting, and going to bat for? The immigrants doing everything right, waiting patiently, filling out forms, taking classes, sometimes for years, learning about our history and our culture, learning English, and integrating themselves fully into our society? Or the immigrants who have started their life here by breaking our laws, which only make them more prone to criminality? The immigrants, who, because of how they sneaked into our country, are more prone to commit hit-and-run vehicle collisions, more prone to lying to police about their identity, more liable to turn their formerly American neighborhoods into miniature versions of villages and towns in their home country, complete with foreign flags and signage in their native language?

This country is scheduled to become majority non-traditional American by the year 2050, and a great proportion of this new “majority” will be the offspring or second generation children of illegal immigrants.

Do you understand the dilemma Americans find themselves in? Liberals, Democrats, college-educated types, Republicans, Tea Partiers, right-wingers, artists, poets, writers, all find themselves, at one time or another, hand-wringing and getting angry over some aspect of how illegal immigrants have changed the fabric of this country. Many Americans want to do the right thing. Many of us are in support of legislation like the Dream Act, which aims not to punish the successful children of illegal immigrants, who, through no fault of their own, as they were babies when their law-breaking parents crossed the border, embraced their new home, thrived in school, and ended up getting accepted to places like Harvard and Yale, only to face roadblocks due to their immigration status.

But at the same time, Americans don’t want the United States of America to become Mexico, or China, or some other foreign country. If we wanted to live in those places, we’d move there. And we resent being called racists or bigots because we are standing up for enforcing our immigration laws, securing our borders, and demanding accountability and punishment for law-violators. We resent being told that illegal immigrants are working jobs that traditional Americans won’t do, because that is a distortion of the truth. Americans won’t do those jobs at the “slave wages” that illegal immigrants are paid. Pay Americans the traditional “American” wages that they used to be paid and they would all flock to those jobs!

We can support legal immigration, and be against illegal immigration. We can be for “immigration reform” that does not include amnesty, and that does include penalties for those who broke the law.

True immigration reform is not a one-way street. It will depend on good faith and cooperation from immigrants, both legal and otherwise, as well as from the foreign governments of those countries where the majority of illegal immigrants are originating from. And it’s going to cost law breakers something, and it’s going to hurt.

When Americans break the law, we have to face the music. It should be no different for law violators who are foreign-born.

The Final Word on the Iraq War?


On the last day of August 2010, the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, President Barack Obama, faced the nation and explained what the “end” of combat operations in Iraq means for Americans. This wasn’t the speech the Left would have liked to hear, and perhaps some on the Right, while still skeptical of Obama, were pleasantly surprised. However, after this speech, maybe the bitterness and divisiveness of the last seven years can finally be put to rest. Whatever the end result, as Obama outlined, Americans have much to be proud of.

Obama acknowledged that our country still faces security challenges, and that we’re not out of the woods when it comes to fixing our domestic economic and social woes. Obama pointed out, though, that this “milestone” [the official close of Operation Iraqi Freedom] “should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment.” This is more FDR than Carter, and is certainly a far cry from the latter’s “malaise” speech. Here is a positive reminder that we are moving in the right direction.

As the commander in chief, and with many Americans unsure about his commitment to the military, Obama made it clear that not only does he support our troops, but insists that they are the ones that have shaped the Iraq legacy into the eventual “success” story that it appears to be evolving into, albeit slowly and still painfully. “Yet there has been one constant amidst these shifting tides,” Obama said, “At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve.”

And these were not hollow words. Obama could have pandered to the anti-war critics, who still harp on the “illegality” of the Iraq War, the lack of WMDs, and how Bush et all led our country into war under false pretenses. Instead, Obama rose to the occasion as our new “decider,” acknowledging the final result and benefit of having removed Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party.

“The Americans who served in Iraq completed every mission they were given,” Obama said, “They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.”

However, this was no flip-flop on Obama’s part. He dutifully mentioned that the Iraq War had been a “contentious” issue among Americans. He acknowledged having disagreed about the war with former President Bush. Yet in the same breath, Obama let America now, that he had respectfully called Bush on the eve of this historic speech, and added: “No one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security…And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.”

And he took no undue credit and laid no blame.

Thoughtfully, Obama spent the second half of his speech outlining his war plans for Afghanistan and the continued fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, while emphasizing that the military alone cannot deliver American influence globally, and that “we must use all elements of our power—including diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example—to secure our interests and stand by our allies.”

Obama outlined strategies for ensuring our continued national strength and influence by promoting domestic prosperity and growing our middle class. He emphasized the need for Americans to carry the same burden in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, changing our energy policy, and implementing education reform—what he refers to as the “tough decisions”—as that carried by our military over the last decade. And he looked ahead to ensure that our returning veterans were well taken care of with increased funding for benefits and health care, including a “post-9/11 G.I. Bill.”

Most poignantly, Obama echoed the reality of gauging military success in the post Cold War world. “In an age without surrender ceremonies,” he said, “we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation.” At the same time, he stirred the memories of Lexington, Gettysburg, Iwo Jima, and Khe Sanh, while summing up the hallmark of American military tradition and the true heroism behind those servicemen and women who laid down their lives in Iraq.

“Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries,” he said somberly, “They fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations—war—and helped the Iraqi people see the light of peace.”

If we needed any evidence that Obama has perhaps “arrived” as a Commander in Chief for all Americans, perhaps this speech is it. Obama, in all of his trademark eloquence and magnanimousness, declared not victory nor failure in Iraq, but that Americans had “met our responsibilities” and that it was “time to turn the page.” This is what we needed to hear from our commander in chief, that it was okay to stop playing the blame game and to accept all the good that had come from the bad. That it was all right to let history be the final judge and have the last word on Iraq.

And that “beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.”