Re-educating Dhimmitude...One At A Time

I have decided to post this article from WSJ

The Education of Rochelle Reed

Rochelle Reed, an editor at the Tribune of San Luis Obispo, Calif., published an essay recently about her son's decision to join the Army. "This was definitely not the way things were supposed to turn out," Mrs. Reed writes:

Never in a million years did I imagine my son would join the Army. Nor did Evan. In high school, he'd hang up on recruiters who called the house. He'd blurt, "Get away from me!" to the ones who trawled the local hangouts. Our home was liberal Democrat and anti-war and now, at 21, he was a Michael Moore fan. The night before he left, he spent his time reading "Stupid White Men." . . .

When I tell people that Evan has joined the Army, their reactions are almost always the same: their faces freeze, they pause way too long, and then they say, "I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry for you." I hang my head and look mournful, accepting their sympathy for the worry that lives in me. But as it dawns on them that Evan wasn't drafted, as Vietnam still clings to my generation, their expressions become quizzical, then disbelieving. I know what they're thinking: Why in the world would any kid in his right mind choose to enlist when we're in the middle of a war? I begin telling them the story, desperate to assure them it wasn't arrogant patriotism or murderous blood lust that convinced him to join. What finally hooked him was a recruiter's comment that if he thought the country's role in Iraq was so screwed up, he should try to fix it.

Mrs. Reed's piece is sincere and candid, and our purpose in noting it is not to pick on her. But it is quite a window she provides into the "liberal Democrat and antiwar" subculture of which she is a part. Because of her family's politics, "never in a million years" did she think her son would join the military. The people she knows see his decision as a cause for sorrow, not pride. Mrs. Reed has to talk them out of the assumption that only "arrogant patriotism" (the adjective itself is telling) or "murderous bloodlust" would motivate someone to serve his country, that no "kid in his right mind" would do so.

Judging by Mrs. Reed's account, American liberals harbor a deep and invidious prejudice against the military--a prejudice Mrs. Reed herself is now overcoming, thanks to the bravery of her son.

A year ago, a famous liberal Democrat remarked, "You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Perhaps he didn't know any better. Rochelle Reed now does.

This fits the Pathology of a Leftinistra to a T.

[...]

I begin telling them the story, desperate to assure them it wasn't arrogant patriotism or murderous blood lust that convinced him to join

[...]

And there you have it, right there. Arrogant patriotism? Murderous blood lust? What would non-arrogant patriotism be? For that matter, what exactly is arrogant patriotism? I love how these silly imps and shallow people come up with these terms and terminologies that have no rhyme nor reason to be called upon to describe a "calling".

The vast majority VOLUNTEER to join the various branches of the United States Military. They "hear" the call. It is heart-felt. It is an answer to the call of duty. The people that answer that call are a special breed than sense it a duty and an honor to serve to maintain our way of life. It it wasn't for the American Armed Services, the United States would have ceased to exist years ago.

The vast majority understand the risks involved in serving in an armed force. Some join for the "goodies" that come in the form of the many benefits up to and including being a man or woman in uniform and getting the accolades of wearing that uniform with no intention of actually "going to war". I have heard many that said that they didn't join to go to war...they joined for the free-stuff. We call them moochers, among other things. I have met some.

When an individual swears the Oath of Service, (many times before they actually swear that Oath, they have been told this), they are not only swearing the Oath of Service, they are giving themselves to the United States Government. They become the Property of the United States Government. They have ample opportunities during the initial phases of training to opt out of service.

Once the training is over and they have not been "sent home" for any number of reasons, their options are limited...it is a done deal. There are no more choices to be made except to follow orders. The UCMJ is thoroughly thorough there.

It says quite a bit for the few to enlist during a time of war. Perhaps they do so after hearing idiots like this Reed woman. The pathetic diatribe is all too telling in that our educators decry this very said same ignorance, knowing bloody well it is those that have served and given their all to maintain the very freedoms these idiots enjoy.

Wishing that the peoples of the Earth can just get along with each other is as ignorant a tenet of stupidity that I even fathom. When a theoretical religion espouses and dictates the killing of those that do not believe as they do is a cult and needs to be dealt with as a cancer.

Pride of country is foreign to this genre of fool and thank God above they are far and few between. They may make the loudest noises and, that is soon beginning to ebb, but they certainly do NOT represent the vast majority in any shape, form or fashion.

As my friend Hawk says, "Forever and always, an American Fighting Man."