Hamas Salutes Jihad vs US: Collaborators Walk Free
Meanwhile, back at the ranch …
What is somewhat more surprising, worrisome, and frankly outrageous, is a gaggle of American, pro-Hamas leftists, clustered around our Muslim Outreach Organizer in Chief, Mr. Obama. I refer to Bill (just a guy I knew from the neighborhood) Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn., once prominently featured on the Post Office Wall, Code Pink’s Jodie Evans and their buddies.
It is one of the great ironies of the post WWII generation, which grew up on anti-Nazi movies and anti-totalitarian literature, that so many have ended up in the position of attempting to complete Hitler’s work, i.e. the murder of the Jews and the destruction of America. And that with such a strongly developed sense of moral certainty — not to mention cooler-than-thou social flair.
These people have been doing a variety of things to funnel aid and friendly press attention to Hamas, including supporting blockade runners and pestering Egypt to allow freer passage between Egypt and Gaza for, well, you know, normal things … like peaches and baby food and mortar shells and katyusha rocket parts. Not to mention hard currency.
Traitors. This is not complicated, nuanced or subtle. Hamas are America’s enemies, and these people are fans and supporters of Hamas.
The supremes concur, at least to the extent that Ayers and company are to be considered criminals and can be prosecuted under the criminal code:
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.
The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.
Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.
“Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” Roberts said.
Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority’s conclusion “that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally” for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups’ lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.
I will not surprise you when I say that I applaud the court’s decision. But I have to admit to being confused.
If we have designated an organization as terrorist (not a category I find useful, but whatever), and that terrorist organization is an enemy of the US, at what point do the criminals that support it move to the head of the class and get sent up for treason? It doesn’t look like a very long complicated logical chain to me, but I’m not a lawyer.
In any case, and unfortunately, the real problem is that it is the government’s job to prosecute. What do you think is the likelihood that Eric can’t-say-jihad Holder is going to bust these rascals? How likely is it, do you think, that Obama is going to drop the hammer on the guy in whose living room he launched his political career?
Treasonous dealings in high places and among the well connected are nothing new in human affairs. But what is new here, and will probably make the history books as a first, is the willful abdication of a great nation in the face of weak and inferior enemies.
