Boy Scouts Troop Donation Boxes Pulled for Implied "pro-war" Message...

Hands down, the best example I've ever seen that dispels the often cited liberal load of shit, "we support the troops, but not the war."  No, you DO NOT support the troops, if you have a problem with sending them toiletries, then you DO NOT support them. Give it a rest....

CAMBRIDGE - Was it just too pro-war for Cambridge? A troop of Boy Scouts is wondering why their donation boxes meant for troops in Iraq were thrown out of polling stations last week.

Election officials ordered the removal of donation boxes set up by a troop of Cambridge Boy Scouts of America during last Tuesday’s municipal election.

The boxes were set up inside the 33 polling stations around the city to collect donations for soldiers serving overseas in the war in Iraq.

Marsha Weinerman, executive director of the city’s Election Commission, said the boxes were removed after a resident complained to commission workers about their implied “pro-war” message.

“We contacted the law department, and it was determined that the best course of action would be to remove the boxes,” Weinerman said.

In a column that appears in this week’s Chronicle, Troop leader Jamisean Patterson said the commission twice granted the scouts permission to set up the boxes at the polling stations.

“We have never seen anything like this decision in Cambridge before,” Patterson wrote. The city is changing for the worse if decisions like this are allowed to be made.”

Rest here>>

Side Note: I'm from Massachusetts and Cambridge is probably the most liberal city in a very liberal state.  Put it this way, they are a sanctuary city for illegals... (Jay @ STACLU has Video)

ZIP

Bookmark Weasel Zippers click HERE, then press CTRL+D

Comments

[Elric66]

I bet they would have had no problem with a pro jihad message.

WZ,

Just to let you know, the leader in the jihadawareness project just got his first invite on talk radio. I recieved an email from Roger Hedgecock. He is out of San Diego and fills in for Rush alot. I passed it on to Traeh so hopefully we will be hearing him on Hedgecock's show soon.

[Zip]

Elric,

I can't check my yahoo email right now. If you have a link post it here so I can throw it up.

[Elric66]

Here is the original project

http://www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com/

Here is the press release

JIHAD AWARENESS PROJECT

Contact: Traeh Lledew FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
traehnam@yahoo.com

COUNTER-JIHAD GROUP SEEKS TO INFLUENCE U.S. SENATE
“Jihad Awareness Project” Sends More Than 100 Books, Dozens of DVDs, to Congress

Three months ago, a volunteer group began coalescing in cyberspace. In a little over two months, the “Jihad Awareness Project” had over a hundred members from forty-seven U.S. states. Concerned about the “more than 9,800 jihad terror attacks” media analysts like Glen Reinsford have counted in news reports from around the globe since September 11, 2001, and upset by terrorist death threats against cartoonists, authors, feminists, and politicians critical of Islam, the internet group wanted to do something “to protect Western values,” according to Traeh Lledew, the group’s

organizer. The group was also alarmed over what its members perceived as the subtle creep of elements of Islamic law and practice into public institutions and economic life in the U.S. and Europe.

So about a week ago, on November 5th, each of the more than one hundred members of the group sent author Robert Spencer’s provocatively titled book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t to a U.S. senator or representative. Many also sent the DVD Islam: What the West Needs to Know, a film that makes few concessions to what some deem political correctness. The DVD interviews Mr. Spencer and a number of other scholars who argue that core elements of Islam’s texts and traditions urge warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation as second-class citizens under Islamic law. Mr. Lledew said many in his group believe that unless the “supremacist” elements of Islamic doctrine are abandoned, over time it will become “increasingly difficult for anyone to escape a sad clash of civilizations.”

That is not an uncontroversial position, of course. But according to Mr. Lledew, “it probably doesn’t get enough airplay, because too many journalists and public figures are afraid to criticize any aspect of Islam.” Asked to elaborate, he said that “not all Muslims want Islamic law imposed, but surveys show that a great many do. And it’s true that Muslims who agree with jihad terrorism are not the majority, but they are by no means a tiny minority either. For example, a survey commissioned by the Guardian newspaper and carried out by the ICM polling organization a few weeks after the deadly terrorist attacks in the London subways showed that five percent of Muslims in the United Kingdom thought those attacks were justified. Five percent works out to about 85,000 UK Muslims. Other surveys came up with similar or more disturbing numbers. Close to half of UK Muslims would like to live under Islamic law rather than under a Western legal system. Nearer to home, a 2007 Pew survey showed that at least 15,000 American Muslims think suicide bombings against civilians are ‘often justified’ to defend Islam. Too many people are afraid to acknowledge these

facts. If there is to be a chance of reform in the Islamic world, more people will need to face up to and reject the aspects of Islamic doctrine that support jihad terrorism and that command the imposition everywhere of Islamic law.”

Mr. Lledew, who like his volunteers earns nothing from the project he started, said he expects senators and representatives to receive most of the books and DVDs during the second week of November. But what does he hope the group will accomplish? “I’m optimistic,” he said. “I like to picture a few senators sitting around together after hours, sipping drinks, watching the DVD and learning. I hope the project will plant some seeds for the future and that perhaps we’ll be able to pursue additional projects and continue to grow.”

# # #

If you’d like more information about this topic, or would like to schedule an interview with Traeh Lledew, please email Traeh at traehnam@yahoo.com.

Here is the email from Roger Hedgecock

I would like to book Traeh on Roger's show. The earliest I can do something would be on Monday Dec 3rd or Tues Dec 4th.
at 4pm pst..

let me know and thanks
Megan "Macarena" Moore
Associate Producer, KOGO-AM
The Roger Hedgecock Show
9660 Granite Ridge Drive San Diego, Ca. 92123 p 858-715-3301 f 858-715-3395 macarena@adnc.com

[jblog]

And thus "I oppose the war but support the troops" is revealed once again for the stealing load of crap that it is.

[Jake]

You can support the troops--their welfare, etc., without supporting Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a narrow-minded lemming.

As for those pictured protestors? Idiots as well. Don't judge all pro-troop, anti-war liberals by their actions. Remember, attack the strongest counter-argument, not the weakest. Don't point to your idiot opponents to characterize all of your opponents.

[Hankmeister]

This is the typical bovine scatology you can expect from lying liberals. Despite their patented lie about "we support the troops", they've missed no opportunity in unfairly demonizing the fighting soldiers' Commander in Chief, denigrating the mission with their pathetic screeds about "no war for oil", voted for politicians who have a long history of cutting the military budget every chance they get and now this garbage. Yeah, they "support the troops" alright. Probably the only reason the leftards want to bring the troops home so quickly is to put them on trial for war crimes which, according to John Murtha and John Freakin' Kerry, they've been committing by order of President Bu$Hitler.

[Hankmeister]

Hey, Jake, how many candidates have you voted for at the national level that makes it a point to rail against the "evil military industrial complex" or has demonstrated a very clear willingness to cut military spending every chance they get, particularly during the so-called "peace dividend" years under Bill Clinton when a significant number of our fighting men and women had to live on food stamps just to make ends meet?

Despite your self-serving rhetoric and obfuscation, you really can't truly "support the troops" if your busy undermining their mission. QUIT LYING TO YOURSELF!

[Lex]

Good find. The way to break it off in the backside of the kind of those preening, morally supercillious, smugly self-satisfied pinch-faced shrews who are convinced that nothing should be permissible unless it is compulsory - while also providing an important civic lesson to the Boy Scouts - is to send a donation to the involved troop. Details at the bottom of this page.

Fight back.

[Tood]

It is a well-known statistical fact that Bush supporters are more intelligent and capable than those that voted for Kerry.

Numbers don't lie, even if leftists do.

[Mike James]

"You can support the troops--their welfare, etc., without supporting Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a narrow-minded lemming."

Jake, kindly spare us your crocodile tears. How would you like to be patronized by compulsive victim-huggers, who don't think that what you are risking your life for is a worthy objective, who aren't grateful for the job you're doing, and think their own damn country is in the wrong?

"...Their welfare, etc." If you care about their "welfare", which I doubt, then surely you have no objections to a Boy Scout troop taking action on behalf of their "welfare", no?

[wandering]

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've yet seen. Anyone who actually supports this decision, especially in light of the previous decisions allowing those boxes to be put up, should go to the barn where they belong.

[megapotamus]

Hey, I probably make the next guy here look like Walter Mondale and I don't think that a POLLING PLACE, for cripes sake, is the place for such a thing. This does have a partisan edge, no doubt. If only we could count on evenhandedness in these things. The Dems will always be allowed to flout such things.

[Max]

They are not against war. They are on the other side.

[submandave]

If anyone doubts my support for both the troops and the Iraqi campaign take a look at my blog. That said, though, unless it is common practice in Cambridge to have donation boxes in polling places I'm with megapotamus. The fault here is with the idiot dufases who initially approved it.

[Steve-o]

Jake says: "You can support the troops--their welfare, etc., without supporting Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a narrow-minded lemming."

Nice weasel words, "their welfare, etc." No Jake, hoping they don't get killed while they lose is not supporting the troops. How about supporting their mission? How about supporting victory? Still whining about disagreeing with Bush's "rationale" 5 years on? It's a little late for that. Troops take orders, and perform missions. Try supporting that. Your mask doesn't cover your agenda, better find a larger one...

[Benthicmerc]

You think that is good, how about this! A typical left leaning student at Brandeis University was observed on Veterans Day, hanging a poster in a prominent location at the school, which stated "All Veterans are murderers". Kind of makes you want to beat a liberal with a rubber hose now don't it?

[jdawg]

Yet more proof that liberals ARE the enemy within.

[Elric66]

Jake,

Can we then start with the Democrat leaders in Congress?

[Math_Mage]

Jake:
"You can support the troops--their welfare, etc., without supporting Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a narrow-minded lemming."

This is correct. However, too many liberals use their disagreement with Bush over whether Iraq should have been invaded to oppose the continued US presence in Iraq. "We shouldn't be there to begin with" is a rhetorically sound, but pragmatically ridiculous reason to oppose the war. Don't cry over spilled milk. Same goes for the "We made mistakes, so we must be losing/in the wrong!" crowd.

Also, sometimes the people who oppose Bush's rationale for war do so on fundamentally incorrect terms. For example, some feel Bush made the war out to be easy, something we could get done quickly. This despite Bush admitted that we had a "long, hard slog" ahead. Another: the "No war for oil" crowd, which never pauses to wonder why we would have invaded for oil when we were able to buy it at the market price, and when conflict in the Middle East was obviously going to drive up oil prices. And again: the "We made things worse and killed so many people!", which ignores the horrors Saddam perpetrated under his regime, the fact that most of the people killed were killed by insurgents, and other things. A subset of this crowd is the "well, we're not killing that many people, but so many people are having to flee!" These people ignore the 4-5 million people who were in exile from Iraq before we invaded (and their support for the war), as well as the recent returning of refugee Iraqis.

Then there's the "No WMDs" crowd, which is closely associated with "Bush lied, people died." I'll take a little more time to refute this one, since it's based on a fact: We didn't find any significant WMD in Iraq. However, this crowd fails to realize one or more of the following points:
(a) Saddam had used WMDs on his own people before, so there was no guarantee that he didn't have more AFAIK;
(b) The Clinton administration also thought Saddam had or was pursuing WMDs, so the problem can't have been just Bush's "lies";
(c) At least some of the evidence was bad, such as the evidence provided by the man codenamed "curveball"; combined with point (b), it suggests that bad evidence was the problem, rather than administrative lies/misrepresentation;
(d) Saddam had violated UN 1441, the condition for cease-fire in 1991, for more than a decade. When a dictator refuses to show you that he has no WMD program, and you have evidence that says that he has one, you assume that he's got one. For all these reasons, that opposition falls flat too.

With the easily refutable antiwar positions gone (and I haven't gone through all of them; there's still such ones as "but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!" and "Why didn't we attack North Korea/Saudi Arabia/go into Sudan/stick with Afghanistan"), a constructive discussion can be had. However, it's very difficult to get to that point in practice because of the human stubbornness of opinion.

Oh, and of course there's all the liberals who DON'T support the troops.

[Adam]

So much for "tolerance" and "diversity".

[jacktanner]

Too prowar??? I'm sure any anti-Bush messages boxes would have taken down because they were too antiwar??? Well I guess not. It's a shame that the 'we support the troops' liars won't receive the justice that enemy sympathizers, conspirators and collaborators received in the past.

[SSG_K]

If I'm not mistaken, Cambridge was where the 11 year old son of SFC Paul Ray Smith was booed by a bunch of anti-war protesters while leading the pledge. SFC Smith received the Medal of Honor posthumously for his actions in Iraq and the protesters who heckled his son did so just over a year after the death of his father.

I don't mind if liberals hate me, I've served my country for 19 years now and have borne the brunt of their 'support' before, but when they abuse the children of my fallen comrades I can find nothing but loathing in my heart for the residents of Cambridge for those who heckled the boy as well as those who allowed it to happen.

Nothing anti-troop that happens in that town can surprise me, I don't believe that there is any depth that they will not sink to.

[SSG_K]

If I'm not mistaken, Cambridge was where the 11 year old son of SFC Paul Ray Smith was booed by a bunch of anti-war protesters while leading the pledge. SFC Smith received the Medal of Honor posthumously for his actions in Iraq and the protesters who heckled his son did so just over a year after the death of his father.

I don't mind if liberals hate me, I've served my country for 19 years now and have borne the brunt of their 'support' before, but when they abuse the children of my fallen comrades I can find nothing but loathing in my heart for the residents of Cambridge for those who heckled the boy as well as those who allowed it to happen.

Nothing anti-troop that happens in that town can surprise me, I don't believe that there is any depth that they will not sink to.

[Julie Pippert]

I don't think hating it up on liberals, people from Cambridge (or MA) helps anything.

It's more ugly and polarizing rhetoric at a time when we need to pull together.

I am a liberal---which, by the way, is not a nasty epithet for Horrible Person---and I just spent well over $100 sending supplies to specific companies stationed in Iraq per their request. (For our family, that's a lot.)

People are people and if people need, then if we have, we give. Especially our troops.

That's a true liberal sentiment.

Don't broadbrush.

Not every person in MA opposes the war, or can't put action behind words about supporting soldiers. Not every liberal hates soldiers. I don't even know any who do, not personally. I personally know hardworking people who care so much about soldiers that we will put actions to words in supporting them, and then do our level active best to get them into better circumstances.

Julie
Using My Words

[cqkgjytmwg]

cqkgjytmwg cqkgjytmwg cqkgjytmwgcqkgjytmwg
cqkgjytmwgcqkgjytmwgcqkgjytmwg cqkgjytmwg