Recently in Military Category

Barry, you and I often disagree on a variety of issues that focus on the interpretation of our constitutional rights.  But, I am sure you'll agree that as we once again celebrate our nation's independence, this is the perfect time to reflect on the underpinnings of our freedom - the Declaration of Independence and the other foundational documents that make up the framework of our republic.  

It seems more and more people are taking a moment during their July 4th holiday to pause and focus on the Declaration of Independence - even an increase, according to the Associated Press, in the number of people who are reciting the historic document at holiday celebrations. 

Barry, I certainly want law enforcement officials to have all the tools they need to go after those who use violence to make their point - whether they open fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. taking the life of a security guard, or target physicians.  Law enforcement must do all it can to investigate these killers.  But I just can't believe the Department of Homeland Security's approach of sweeping ALL pro-life supporters, or ALL military veterans together will help them identify those who intend to do harm.  The idea that the DHS would define an entire class of people (those who oppose abortion and military veterans) as "right-wing extremists" was wrong when the report was leaked in April.  It is still wrong today.

The fact is law enforcement has a difficult task.  But, putting an entire class of people on a watch list just doesn't make sense.  I'm sure military veterans don't want to be associated with Holocaust Museum shooting suspect, James Von Brunn, a World War II veteran who reportedly has ties to white supremacists and whose website spews anti-Semitic hate.  Just as non-violent pro-life supporters don't want to be attached to Scott Roeder, who is charged with murdering Dr. Tiller.  Yes, investigators should investigate.  Are Roeder's claims of more violence real?  Should Von Brunn's background been a signal to authorities? 

As I stated in my earlier post on the DHS report, there are extremists who are dangerous and the federal government should do all it can to protect us from those who break the law and commit violent and deadly crimes.  But, let's not resort to sweeping characterizations that put law-abiding citizens into the same category as these violent offenders.

To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.

 

Barry, let's call this Homeland Security report on "Rightwing Extremism" what it is - offensive and insulting to millions of law-abiding citizens - including veterans and pro-life supporters - who exercise their constitutional rights to speak about issues that matter most to them.

 

Here's the definition of "rightwing extremism" that appears in the DHS report:

 

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Barry, I just returned from the Middle East where I witnessed firsthand the terror that the Israelis face from the longstanding attacks by Hamas - rockets launched into Israel causing death, injury and terror.

 

I was in two Israeli cities - Ashkelon and Sderot - where more than 8,000 Hamas-fired rockets have landed over the years.  During my visit, we were sent to shelters as Hamas continued launching its rockets in those cities. 

 

I had the opportunity to go to Sderot with Israeli Middle East expert and former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Colonel Raanan Gissin. Colonel Gissin, the Senior Advisor to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who told me quite clearly that he believes the war Israel is now engaged in is really a war against Iran.  Hamas is fighting this war as the proxy for Iran, he said.

 

Israel knows that it must remove the terrorists and that is what its campaign has focused on during the past 10 days.  Israel is making progress against an enemy who uses the civilian population in Gaza as a shield - to hide its weapons and its leadership. 

 

Israel must defend itself.  Even now, Hamas is stepping up its rocket attacks in Israel  and is urging Palestinians to 'crush' Israel.

 

And, now there's growing pressure at the United Nations from many Arab countries to pass a resolution to condemn Israel.  What's noteworthy is that none of the resolutions under consideration mention the longstanding and ongoing terror campaign waged by Hamas with its rockets fired at Israeli civilians.

 

President-elect Obama has said little about the current situation in Gaza saying he won't make any public comments until he's inaugurated.  But at the White House today, President Bush accurately singled out Hamas for starting the current conflict by violating an earlier cease-fire. Any new cease-fire, President Bush said "must have the conditions in it so that Hamas does not use Gaza as a place from which to launch rockets."

 

Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid understands what's at stake:  "I think what the Israelis are doing is very important," Reid said. "I think this terrorist organization, Hamas, has got to be put away."  

 

That is a priority.

Jay, you are half right in discussing the reception (I'm not sure why you characterized it as a "celebration") to be given by 25 significant religious groups for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  He is, of course, a revolting figure in so many ways.  He is the puppet of the most extreme clerics in Iran.  His comments about the Holocaust, about gay people (who don't exist in Iran, he noted to an audience at Columbia University earlier this year), the death penalty for heretical religious views, and so many other topics should shock the conscience of any thinking persons.  It was a mistake to offer him the opportunity to give an address on any topic, including "religious contributions to peace", a subject about which he has a monumental level of ignorance.