John Hawkins has some photographs of anti-war protesters. These fucktards are actually rooting for our soldiers to be killed. Hawkins waxes rhetorically: "When you have left-wingers out in the street, not simply protesting the war, but declaring solidarity with the people who are fighting against US troops, has not the line between dissent and treachery been crossed?"

I'm not one to take lightly the idea of stifling free speech, but I think that for this to be considered treachery or treason, you need first to decide if they are taking overt acts to lend aid to our enemies. If they were sending money, food, weapons, or equipment in support of our enemies, that would definitely be lending material aid to our enemies. Without question that is an act of treason. But it is at best, arguable, that merely protesting the war and praising our enemies is lending material aid. I understand that speaking out publically can demoralize our troops while strengthening the resolve of our enemies. But is that necessarily an overt act to lend material aid?

I figure that cheerleaders are just cheerleaders. I realize that cheering and crowd noise can affect the outcome of a football game, but does that mean the cheerleaders should be given credit for a win, or blamed for a loss. I know this is more than a game, but a professional should not let the cheerleaders affect his performance. Especially when the stakes are this high, and the cheerleaders are thousands of miles away watching the game in their living room.

I don't like anti-war peaceniks any more than the next guy, but I don't think that taking away their First Amendment right to cheer for the other team should be an option worth considering. Besides, if it weren't for their willing accomplices in the liberal media, who seek them out and trumpet their message to the far reaches of the globe, we wouldn't even be having this debate.