From The Patriot Post:

Arizona prosecutors have decided not to pursue the death penalty in the case of Faleh Al-Maleki, the Iraqi immigrant who struck his 20-year-old daughter Noor — and the woman who was protecting her — with his vehicle. Noor, whom Al-Maleki had accused of being too “Westernized,” died of her injuries, and her father has been charged with first-degree murder, attempted murder, and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident.

Public defender Billy Little asked the judge to take “special precautions” that the D.A. wouldn’t seek death because Al-Maleki is a Muslim. The irony is that Al-Maleki committed his crimes because by his own reckoning, his daughter was not true to her Muslim faith.

In addition, Little’s bias is apparently acceptable. Little, in reference to the religious beliefs of County Attorney Andrew Thomas, asked for “An open process [that] provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs.”

This murder was based on the centuries-old tradition — still adhered to in some parts of the world — of murdering female relatives who don’t obey Islamic rules. It is, arguably, even more disturbing when the crime happens in the United States and political correctness affords special protection for her murderer.

You can also read more about this story here.

Now a muslim murderer is escaping a justifiable punishment because they are afraid of it looking like he’s being executed by a Christian…?  This is what our legal system and our political correctness has led us to and will continue to lead us to if we do not take notice.

“The state tends to expand in proportion to its means of existence and to live beyond its means, and these are, in the last analysis, nothing but the substance of the people. Woe to the people that cannot limit the sphere of action of the state! Freedom, private enterprise, wealth, happiness, independence, personal dignity, all vanish.” –French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

trea-son [tree-zuhn]

1.  any attempt to impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance
2.  the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one’s government

I personally think there are many things President Obama has done that would fall under the definition of treason if we were to carefully examine his acts and his motives.  Calling our President a traitor, though, is a bold step to take.

Considering Obama’s words in last night’s speech (full text), however, I’m wondering how long we must wait for someone to finally tell it like it is and point out the obvious.

In last night’s speech at West Point, Obama told America, the world, the Taliban, that we will fight hard and strong in Afghanistan for the next 18 months…then we will come home.  It is my contention that only an imbecile or a traitor would openly tell our enemies when we plan to give up the fight…which is exactly what Obama did in his speech.  What Obama did would be like a boxer telling his opponent that he plans to go down in the 7th round.  The opponent knows that if he can somehow survive until round 7 he’s got the win in the bad.  Do you think the opponent will go down in round 6?  Never.

Telling our enemies that we plan to give up in 18 months falls directly under the “giving aid and comfort to our enemies” part of the definition for treason.  Doesn’t it aid our enemies to know when we will stop fighting them?  Doesn’t it give them comfort to know that if they can survive for 18 months they have the win in the bag?

Why isn’t this considered treason?