From the late 1970s (gee, uhm who exactly was in the WH at that time?!?) the Dems have sought to ignore and pretend that terrorism wasn’t terrorism and that most of those (not all) aimed directly at the US (and yes, liberals the US Armed Forces are US citizens) has been islamic fanatical types.

Now, the NYTs is reduced to making them seem like – pathetic, idiotic, pretenders to the terrorist agenda. What smucks – but with a D (and a big D that is) in the WH – I wonder exactly who (yeah, right it’s always going to be Boooosh’s fault) when the next attack occurs? That will be a verbal gyration worthy of SNL.

Where is a good trial for Treason when you need one – love the thought of the duplicity of making this a ‘criminal’ offense rather than pure terrorism – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Problem is – either way – lots of Americans could get killed the next time – and it is not a case of if – it is a case of when. Just wish that the NYTs would be journalistic enough to realize that.

They say it keeps em at bay… We know crosses don’t work anymore, and aren’t sanctioned by our government.

BTW I changed the link above because of a flag issue..

http://youhavetobethistalltogo.....gspot.com/

They were set to do this on the anniversary. Again, anniversaries and holidays just stress me out. And to think Obama wanted a-mad-man on the 4th of July.

These sound like sting operations.

Have Acorn’s lawyers been notified?

Was confidentiality breached?

Wouldn’t these usually sound citizens have occupied themselves with pornography, lying, stealing and other common occupations of the left if they hadn’t been entrapped by the FBI?

Where is the ACLU when we need them?

And how long is Eric Holderbama going to let this kind of travesty go on?

It’s obvious that we didn’t give these gentlemen enough free stuff quickly enough or they would already be addicted to something and incapable of acting coherently enough to get themselves entrapped.

So if we are going to treat terrorists as domestic criminals instead of foreign enemies, as Nerobama and Tigellinus-Holder say we must, then it might at least behoove us to charge them with the most serious crimes that are applicable, including treason. By charging terrorists with treason, it would serve to alert the American public both to the seriousness of our predicament and to the suicidal consequences of our immigration policy. Yet this step is never considered, and the terrorists are generally charged under conspiracy statutes or terrorism statutes instead.

Treason is an overt act by one who owes allegiance to the USA that consists either of (1) levying war against the US, or (2) adhering to their enemies and giving them aid and comfort.

The law requires the testimony of two witnesses to the overt act, but that would not seem to be difficult to manage with the FBI covering these creeps like hair on soap. So why aren’t they being charged with the ultimate crime––treason?

While it is only necessary to meet one of the two alternative tests, the criminal acts in these three cases appear to meet both tests. They are clearly levying war by bombing or attempting to bomb government buildings and other targets, and by attending al Qaeda training camps. And under the adherence test, it is not legally necessary that the enemy be a foreign country or foreign government.

No doubt the illegal migrant from Jordan does not owe allegiance to the USA, so that lets him off the hook for treason. But this cannot be said of Zazi, who is “a legal immigrant from Afghanistan,” and presumably the Illinois bomber is here lawfully as well.

Our political leaders have bent over backwards to extend citizenship and the constitutional rights of citizenship to every sorry-assed Islamic jihadist they can find. So, if we are going to sell American citizenship so cheaply, then why not at least recognize the duties of citizenship, and prosecute them for treason when they wage war against us?

Gee, love how they preface this sentence to instill doubt. They couldn’t just say “The government alleges that…” Lots of “maybe” and “seems to” as well.

P.S. Why the hell are we allowing Islamic (pro-Shariah) people to enter the country, legally or illegally? Doesn’t one have to swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States in order to become a citizen? And doesn’t Shariah law promote itself as Allah’s true law, indisputable and supreme over any man-made laws? In other words, the systems are 100% incompatible. You either believe that Allah requires a rape victim to present four male witnesses to the crime, or that a DNA, trauma kit, and reason beyond a doubt are enough to establish a forced sexual encounter in a court of law. There is no intermingling of both systems. There is no dual allegiance.

So I guess the Islamists just lie to get in our country and there is no legal recourse? Great. (sarc) Seems like the only alternative is to ban most immigration from Islamic countries, to weed out the bad ones. But that’s not PC and it wouldn’t go well with our President’s courting of the Muslim world.

Just because there hasn’t been a successful terrorist act since 9/11, the general public thinks we’re safe. Most of these people would make ca-ca in their panties if they knew the truth.

And Secretary Napolitano, people here illegally ARE breaking the law. That’s why they’re called ILLEGAL immigrants.

Enough said.