The enemy within part two

It's late, and I began this as a reply in the comments section and it kept growing.
Read the comments in "The Enemy Within" for the background. Forgive me if this meanders a bit more than usual.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that electing a muslim to office at this juncture in the war is tantamount to electing a nazi into office in 1942. Wait, that isn't right. It's tantamount to electing a Japanese national into office in 1942. The mejii gummint in Japan had twisted the ideas of bushido, shinto, and consideration of their emperor as a living god into a religion, including "thought police" and demanded fealty to the emperor alone.

Islam demands exactly that, that level of blind obedience.

The very word "islam " translates as "submission."

I don't think it's particularly proper to have a zealot from any religeon running the country. I am a Christian. I am not a perfect one, and I recognize that I do have a wide streak of hatred and intolerance for some people--almost completely based on the actions of a subset of those people. Guess what? I am not perfect.

I hate muslims. I love my country. I see the two as polar opposites. I didn't go to Iraq to make it a better place, I went because I am a soldier, I fight where I am told and I win where I fight. If that means I go try to stabilize a country afther the majority of high-intensity conflict has passed, then that is what I do. If that means I am polite, courteous, and prepared to kill everyone I meet, then that is what I do. In my (admittedly short) lifetime, I have seen more death, destruction, and hatred spewed upon my countrymen and our allies by a single subset of our global population, and I have little recourse than to label them all as unworthy of saving--until they show me differently.

I don't believe in the idea of extermination, eradication, or any other form of genocide, because that is their way. I espouse overmatch. They kill one of ours, we kill 100 of theirs, until they cry "enough!" and decide that it is better to live, and let live.

I think we would do very well as a nation to reverse the sharia invasion so prevalent in Europe, to immediately suspend any and all imigration by muslims, and arab muslims in particular, to cancel all student and worker visas, to round up illegals (focus efforts this group before we bother with mexicans--they have yet to blow anyone up.) And basically stop the influx of people whose very religeon dictates that we "convert or be put to the sword."

I did not put you down Leanne. I know the stresses I have put my family through over the last 14 years, and I applaud you for standing by your husband, and also for speaking your mind. You said: "What makes our country great is that we can agree to disagree and yes people who hate other people are free to say it. "

That's where we agree. That is one of the many things which makes our country great. My point is that if this country were run by a muslim government, then that very principle would evaporate. Remember the Danish cartoon riots, because someone drew pictures of allah? Do you realize that Salman Rushdie still lives in hiding because of the fatwa on his head for writing the "Satanic Verses?"

I hate the idea of our citizens electing--mostly through ommission and as an impotent way to "punish" the stupid (republican) party--an avowed muslim. He swore in on the Koran, signifying that his guiding principles are based in his faith, and his faith is contrary to the very foundations of our nation--free religion, free expression, fair taxation (yes, the koran says to tax the unbelievers living amongst you so heavily that they finally submit to islam--and once they do, kill them.)

We have differing views on the way the war is handled. I don't agree with the way we are doing everything, but I think we should be doing it. We hunt and kill them wherever they are, and we keep finding them in Iraq, Afghaniustan, Iran, (increasingly) in Pakistan, and even in the Philipines. I disagree with retired Generals who condemn the President after they retire, when they didn't have the stones to do it while they were still in the military. I owe my boss my loyalty, but not at the cost of my integrity and honor, and if I truly thought that what we were doing was wong or being handled completely the wrong way, and my job was to represent the Army before congress, then that is what I would do. My first duty is to the constitution, not the President. I wouldn't not speak out just because I was a "good little general" and wait until after I retired and had the cush defense contractor job.

I do base my voting along religeous lines. I want a representative who understands that we finally answer to God. I only believe in one God, the God of Abraham, the Father of Christ, the maker of heaven and earth. That doesn't mean I only vote methodist, or baptist, or I woudln't vote for a Jew, because we are both believers in the same God. I would never vote for a buddhist, muslim, zoroastrian, or atheist. I would never vote for someone who did not belive in my God. Why would I want someone to represent me who didn't believe in my God? Why would you?

Leanne, you made your points succinctly and (other than the barb about how I got promoted to Major) respectfully. Some of my readers (The teeming hundreds, God bless them) took offense to your comments, and (as we're a pretty independently minded bunch here--not affiliated or blindly following any party, but exposing the idiocy of both) some also stepped up to defend my comments, because they are often not only what I think, but what others feel as well.

I suppose what I am really trying to say is thank you for your input, Leanne; and the rest of you make nice and apologize. My blog is prettymuch troll-free because of the browbeatings we give agent provacateurs, and Leanne was right on target with her assesment that I, as a military officer, should not espouse complete and total hatered for a religeon in toto. As a military officer, I treat all people equally, regardless of race, color, religeon, creed, or nationality. This isn't Major Ziegenfuss's Blog. This blog is written by Chuck, a private citizen, who has every right to feel this and express himself in any way he desires. That is why I sign posts with my first name, and why I keep my professional life separate from my private life. (I even have two different sets of business cards, for christssakes.)

I don't believe that he should have been elected; I believe that more of our citizens should have stood up for their God and Country, and as he was the one who made such a big deal of his islamic faith, he should've been taken to task for it. We are by default a Christian-based nation, from the backgrounds of our founders to our blue laws, the puritanical speech-police at the FCC and even the censorship at the MPAA. It is time we stopped looking at our diversity as our strength (a house divided cannot stand), and started looking at the thing that binds us all and makes us strongest: our Constitution. Anything or anyone who opposes the ideals and concepts in that document should be cut from the fold.

I totally believe that islam, because of its intolerance, is 100% contrary to the freedoms enumerated in the constitution, and a muslim must choose which he believes in: Freedom or Submission. A good muslim chooses islam, and shouts from the rooftops his beliefs (or swears into office in a very highly publicized ceremony on a koran). A good citizen believes that all individuals have the freedom of religeon, to chose any religeon and practice it peacefully. Islam forbids it. It limits the freedom of assembly to things done in the name of allah. You can't petition a mullah for a redress of grievances, their interpretation is law. There is no free press in the Muslim world, nor is their equality. Submission is the antithesis of Freedom. And that is why I hate it.


--Chuck