Cartoonist Ted Rall: "We Do Not Owe Our Liberties To The Military"

[Stephanie]

#@#@$ #$#hole :chains: :nine:

Posted by Dave Pierre on February 3, 2006 - 23:27.
In an especially contentious exchange on this evening's Hannity and Colmes (Friday February 3, 2006), cantankerous cartoonist Ted Rall, a guest on the program, unbelievably declared, "We do not owe our liberties to the military." The topic was the recent Washington Post cartoon by Tom Toles that has outraged many. The cartoon prompted a letter to the editor (linked at Michelle Malkin) from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who tagged the the work as "beyond tasteless." Needless to say, Rall (who himself has created bigoted trash in the past) defended Toles' cruel piece. Here's the relevant exchange (audiotape on file, emphasis mine):

SEAN HANNITY: Here's what you're missing. The reason that you have the right to be mean, and you were mean to this guy [killed in Afghanistan, former NFL star Pat] Tillman, who gave up a football contract to save his country. The reason you have the right to be mean in your cartoons, and Toles has a right to mean and insensitive in his cartoons, is because of people like this (Sean holds up the WaPo cartoon) that literally put their lives on the line so you have the right for free expression. And you insult them and use them as props so you can make your left-wing political points.

RALL: Sean, you could not possibly be more wrong about the nature of this country. We do not owe our liberties to the military. We owe them to the Constitution. We have civilian rule in the United States --

HANNITY: The military preserves the Constitution. They put their lives on the line so that you have free speech. You do owe them.

RALL: The military doesn't give us free speech.

HANNITY: Yes, they do.

RALL: Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers gave us free speech.

HANNITY: No. Because if they don't defend that Constitution, you don't have the right to be so wrong in your cartoons!

"We do not owe our liberties to our military"?? I'm sure George Washington would have had a few things to say about that, not to mention the generations of heroic young men who fought and died to protect and defend our precious liberties.

It was simply another pathetic display by Ted Rall. How ungrateful this man is. What a disgrace.

By the way, if Rall's comments weren't sad enough, co-host Alan Colmes claimed that the Joint Chiefs' letter to the Washington Post was "intimidating" and that there was a "chill of intimidation that goes right down the spine of the First Amendment." Puh-leeze, Alan.
http://newsbusters.org/node/3898

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I caught the tail end of that interview on the replay of Hannity and Colmes tonight. I was only familiar with Rall through what I had heard and I've never seen any of his cartoons, so this was my first Rall experience.

What a complete and total bozo. I'm not sure what Mr. Rall thinks happend during the Revolutionary War, but Jefferson, Madison, and the other founding fathers could written anything they wanted, it would have meant nothing if the military hadn't defeated the British and won independence from England. I guess the idiot thinks if our military doesn't defend the country we'll still be able to benefit from the Constitution.

He's just another far left wing Liberal that thinks Freedom of Speech is a one way street. He can say what he wants, but nobody else has the Freedom of Speech to tell him he's wrong. The coward even tried to avoid some of Hannity's questions by insisting that the producer made a deal with him that certain things wouldn't be brought up. Even Alan Colmes sheepishly agreed that they never made deals with anyone. Hannity somehow managed to avoid calling him a liar to his face. I wouldn't have made it.

 

[William Joyce]

Rall is a clever lefty with some backbone, but it's too flat a statement to say that we don't owe our liberties to the military. What's really going through Rall's mind is this: "There's no connection between a zitty 20-year-old from Iowa enlisted in the Army toting an M-16 who probably couldn't identify a single provision of the Constitution and who, if given the chance, would unhesitatingly eliminate the right to free speech, and the reasoned, liberal and enlightened legal protection created by Jefferson and Madison." And indeed, the threat to free speech doesn't often come from foreign, but rather domestic, sources. And we don't need the military to protect us against libel suits. Same goes for most other liberties. They only require military protection to the extent that our nation is at risk of being taken over by those who would take them away, but what confuses things is that in the course of that happening, you'd probably see a big reduction in liberties anyway, so who knows. (Rall's also thinking, unfairly, that "the military is a bunch of white reactionary racists, and I hate to think of owing them ANYTHING. As I sit here in my Manhattan liberal dream world, I can't conceive of, and in fact despise, the lowly farmers in the midwest who feed me, the military men and women who protect me, and the white NYC cop who stands between me and the violent black man on the corner who I imagine is the savior of the world.)

But if Muslims attack Denmark over their cartoon, and the Danish military moves to protect, then indeed, free speech liberty WILL be owed to the military.

 

[nosarcasm]

I d rep you Joyce but the system is rigged against you.

Good post though.,

 

[pegwinn]

Mr Rall is the kind of guy you love to hate. But, by not silencing him it accomplishes two things.

First, it continues to demonstrate that his very existenace and continued stupidity prove that GWGB hasn't transformed America into the "vaterland".

Second, this guy and others like him piss off the folks in the middle. These are the folk who just move along life without taking sides or giving a damn. Normally they don't even bother to vote. But the extremeism and shock value of the Ralls et al, makes them vote the other way.

 

[Gunny]

#@#@$ #$#hole :chains: :nine:

Posted by Dave Pierre on February 3, 2006 - 23:27.
In an especially contentious exchange on this evening's Hannity and Colmes (Friday February 3, 2006), cantankerous cartoonist Ted Rall, a guest on the program, unbelievably declared, "We do not owe our liberties to the military." The topic was the recent Washington Post cartoon by Tom Toles that has outraged many. The cartoon prompted a letter to the editor (linked at Michelle Malkin) from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who tagged the the work as "beyond tasteless." Needless to say, Rall (who himself has created bigoted trash in the past) defended Toles' cruel piece. Here's the relevant exchange (audiotape on file, emphasis mine):

SEAN HANNITY: Here's what you're missing. The reason that you have the right to be mean, and you were mean to this guy [killed in Afghanistan, former NFL star Pat] Tillman, who gave up a football contract to save his country. The reason you have the right to be mean in your cartoons, and Toles has a right to mean and insensitive in his cartoons, is because of people like this (Sean holds up the WaPo cartoon) that literally put their lives on the line so you have the right for free expression. And you insult them and use them as props so you can make your left-wing political points.

RALL: Sean, you could not possibly be more wrong about the nature of this country. We do not owe our liberties to the military. We owe them to the Constitution. We have civilian rule in the United States --

HANNITY: The military preserves the Constitution. They put their lives on the line so that you have free speech. You do owe them.

RALL: The military doesn't give us free speech.

HANNITY: Yes, they do.

RALL: Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers gave us free speech.

HANNITY: No. Because if they don't defend that Constitution, you don't have the right to be so wrong in your cartoons!

"We do not owe our liberties to our military"?? I'm sure George Washington would have had a few things to say about that, not to mention the generations of heroic young men who fought and died to protect and defend our precious liberties.

It was simply another pathetic display by Ted Rall. How ungrateful this man is. What a disgrace.

By the way, if Rall's comments weren't sad enough, co-host Alan Colmes claimed that the Joint Chiefs' letter to the Washington Post was "intimidating" and that there was a "chill of intimidation that goes right down the spine of the First Amendment." Puh-leeze, Alan.
http://newsbusters.org/node/3898

This guy is obviously just another left-wingnut moron. Hell, worse. I figured even morons could do enough math to figure out the military is the what created this Nation, and has kept us solvent.

The fact that our government is run by civilians is irrelevant, since it is those civilians who control the military and/or when and where it goes and why.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'd like to think that this is a case of someone whose livelihood is made by communicating on paper just giving more power to the written word than is warranted. But in Rall's case I sense it is really no more than just another liberal, anti-military, anti-Republican agenda gone to extremes.

Of course he knows that our Constitution is the theoretical basis for our freedoms, and he also knows that it was the blood of American revolutionary soldiers that made it possible to live those freedoms.

I envision this to be true in Rall's world:
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Japan goes on to defeat U.S. forces. The Emperor prepares to invade and take over the U.S, but before he does, someone shows him... our Constitution.

He reads it, stops, and declares, "No, we cannot invade the U.S.! They have this Constitution which gives them freedoms!

And back to Japan they go, soundly defeated by a piece of paper.

Yeah, Ted. We believe that you believe that.

 

[-Cp]

He's another great reason why there needs to be Liberal Snipers in this country.... .

 

[Mr.Conley]

First let me say one thing: Thomas Jefferson isn't an author of the Constitution. At the time of its writing, he was serving as the US ambassador to France. As such, the Constitution isn't really his words. However, Jefferson was responsible for formulating the words of the Declaration and the actualy "writing" of it.

The military is partly responsible our freedom. The soldiers of the revoulution allowed the Founders to write Articles of Confederation to be written. Upon its success as a failure, the founders got back together and wrote the Constitution. Of course the Constitution was attacked almost immediantly when President Adams signed the Aliens and Seditions Act. However, I feel that other people, things, and events have helped preserve our freedoms. Of course the Constitution itself created the system of checks and balances within the government that prevent anyone from grabbing power. George Washington for not only fighting the revolution but establishing so many important precedents as our first president. The judiciary for its viligence over the centuries in defending the Constitution. Individual members of the populace and government who believe in freedom, and, most importantly, an education system that renforces the concept of freedom in our children's minds to the point where they cannot accept another system..

 

[Annie]

First let me say one thing: Thomas Jefferson isn't an author of the Constitution. At the time of its writing, he was serving as the US ambassador to France. As such, the Constitution isn't really his words. However, Jefferson was responsible for formulating the words of the Declaration and the actually "writing" of it.

We've covered this ground before, but I didn't see anyone bring up Jefferson writing the Constitution. Do you believe that Jefferson wasn't instrumental in rights enjoyed being placed into the Constitution, via The Declaration of Independence and other writings?

The military is partly responsible our freedom. The soldiers of the revoulution allowed the Founders to write Articles of Confederation to be written. Upon its success as a failure, the founders got back together and wrote the Constitution. Of course the Constitution was attacked almost immediantly when President Adams signed the Aliens and Seditions Act. However, I feel that other people, things, and events have helped preserve our freedoms. Of course the Constitution itself created the system of checks and balances within the government that prevent anyone from grabbing power. George Washington for not only fighting the revolution but establishing so many important precedents as our first president. The judiciary for its viligence over the centuries in defending the Constitution. Individual members of the populace and government who believe in freedom, and, most importantly, an education system that renforces the concept of freedom in our children's minds to the point where they cannot accept another system..

Well won't disagree with the above. Still unsure of what any of this has to do with the topic of military protecting our rights. I guess I'm missing something in your post.

 

[Mr.Conley]

enlightened legal protection created by Jefferson and Madison."

What a complete and total bozo. I'm not sure what Mr. Rall thinks happend during the Revolutionary War, but Jefferson, Madison, and the other founding fathers could written anything they wanted,

These two quotes gave me the idea that Jefferson was there

We've covered this ground before, but I didn't see anyone bring up Jefferson writing the Constitution. Do you believe that Jefferson wasn't instrumental in rights enjoyed being placed into the Constitution, via The Declaration of Independence and other writings?

I think that Jefferson, though he certainly had some influence, did not have as much influene on the Constitution as the other founders because he was not present at the time. I feel his influence via the Declaration was also minimal because of the time span between the two writings, the different subjects of the two documents, and the because I hold doubts on his real influence on the actual writing of the Declartion.

At the time of the Constitutions writing, Jefferson was thousands of whiles away. During the time period, this would have made communication with the framers difficult. As well the framers were taken to locking themselves inside the building to prevent contact with the outside world while writing the Constitution. I don't think Jefferson had much influence on the writing at the time because ofthe distance.

I also think his influence via the Declaration would be minimal because of the differences between the two documents. If you look at the actual Declaration, the famous "all men are created equal" stuff only makes up the first smaller portion of the document. THe majority list the crimes the Founders felt good King George had commited against the colonies. The latter part was the big one for the Founders. The Constitution only deals with the rights of citizens in the preamble and the Bill of Rights, which was written after the Constitution was anyway (Jefferson was still not around to help then either). The majority of the document concerns the structure and function of the government, as well as the process of changing and ratifying the Constitution. In the only two areas the documents theoritically interlap, I feel Jefferson still had no influence. At the time of the Constitutions writing, the Declaration was nearly 15 years old. I doubt the founders would look to it for clues as to how to begin the Constitution. The democratic feel of the Preamble probably cam from the overall consensus of the present Framers, rather than from being inspired by jefferson's document of old. As such Jefferson's influence on the Constitution via the Declaration remains minimal because of the the difference in content.

Jefferson also had marginal influence via the declaration because I feel he did not have as much influence on the Declarations writing. Although Jefferson was the one who actually wrote down the final draft of the Declaration, he did not write his own words. Rather a "Declaration Writing" committee, whose members included Ben Franklin, revised the document. Jefferson was also highly influenced by other sources. To quote John Adams,

"As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before. The substance of it is contained in the declaration of rights and the violation of those rights in the Journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet, voted and printed by the town of Boston, before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams."

This quote shows, most of the Declaration didn't come from Jefferson, he just repeated what he heard.

 

[Annie]

Not disagreeing with what you said, however the fact that Jefferson was influenced by others, in no way dilutes his influence on others, at his time or now. Actually, Franklin and the others did turn over the writing to Jefferson. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffauto.htm#declarationdebate

BTW, I was aware of Jefferson being in France at the time of the Constitutional Convention, as are most here. As I said before, we discussed it at some length here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28073&page=1&highlight=jefferson+france+books

I thought it interesting that Jefferson sent hundreds of books from his private collection to I believe it was Madison, while he was in France.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Rall is a clever lefty with some backbone, but it's too flat a statement to say that we don't owe our liberties to the military. What's really going through Rall's mind is this: "There's no connection between a zitty 20-year-old from Iowa enlisted in the Army toting an M-16 who probably couldn't identify a single provision of the Constitution and who, if given the chance, would unhesitatingly eliminate the right to free speech, and the reasoned, liberal and enlightened legal protection created by Jefferson and Madison." And indeed, the threat to free speech doesn't often come from foreign, but rather domestic, sources. And we don't need the military to protect us against libel suits. Same goes for most other liberties. They only require military protection to the extent that our nation is at risk of being taken over by those who would take them away, but what confuses things is that in the course of that happening, you'd probably see a big reduction in liberties anyway, so who knows. (Rall's also thinking, unfairly, that "the military is a bunch of white reactionary racists, and I hate to think of owing them ANYTHING. As I sit here in my Manhattan liberal dream world, I can't conceive of, and in fact despise, the lowly farmers in the midwest who feed me, the military men and women who protect me, and the white NYC cop who stands between me and the violent black man on the corner who I imagine is the savior of the world.)

But if Muslims attack Denmark over their cartoon, and the Danish military moves to protect, then indeed, free speech liberty WILL be owed to the military.

Another clever lefty was recently written about in the National Review. Like Rall, Joel Stein is another "ivory tower" lefty elitist who scoffs at the military. Theodore Roosevelt (wealthy Harvard man) answers men like Stein and Rall in The Atlantic in 1894. Excerpt from the NR article:

Stein is one of many pseudo-intellectuals who feel that their education and socio-economic status excuse them of the responsibility to serve. They act as if they were entitled to freedom's blessings, just in order to indulge themselves.

Roosevelt does not let Stein and his ilk go easily:

"For educated men of weak fibre, there lies a real danger in that species of literary work which appeals to their cultivated senses because of its scholarly and pleasant tone, but which enjoins as the proper attitude to assume in public life one of mere criticism and negation; which teaches the adoption toward public men and public affairs of that sneering tone which so surely denotes a mean and small mind."

The sneering tone of which Roosevelt speaks is readily apparent in so many of our leading intellectuals and politicians. It bespeaks a condescension born of elitism, which is only fostered by an isolated and privileged upbringing, untouched by the weighty ideals of duty, honor, and selflessness. Roosevelt drives in the final nail:

"Again, there is a certain tendency in college life...to make educated men shrink from contact with the rough people who do the world's work, and associate only with one another and with those who think as they do. This is a most dangerous tendency...Let him learn that he must deal with the mass of men; that he must go out and stand shoulder to shoulder with his friends of every rank, and face to face with his foes of every rank, and must bear himself well in the hurly-burly. He must not be frightened by the many unpleasant features of the contest...He will meet with checks and make many mistakes; but if he perseveres, he will achieve a measure of success and will do a measure of good such as is never possible to the refined, cultivated, intellectual men who shrink aside from the actual fray."

With these words Roosevelt draws a line in the sand between those who, like Stein, use their education as a way around hardship, duty, and sacrifice, and those who see their education and privilege as a debt that must be repaid.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

These two quotes gave me the idea that Jefferson was there.

I still don't see where anyone said Jefferson wrote the Constitution. Never the less, I think the point people are trying to make is that all of the founding fathers, as well as those who fought in the war, deserve credit in one form or another for the freedoms we enjoy today. Jefferson influenced the Constitution, if in no other way, through the Declaration of Independence. I believe it was Samuel Adams that said something along the lines of "Without the Declaration of Independence, there is no Constitution."

**Actually, scratch that. Reminding myself of the topic of the thread, I think everyone's point was: Ted Rall is a stupid jackass.

Okay, I got things back on topic.

 

[manu1959]

rall is a maroooooon...who the hell does he think fought the brits a piece of paper?

i am sure the brits said; blimey now they have gone a declared thier freedom....no use fighting now they have a piece of paper....lets go home....fucking stupid pricks.....cartoonists ...now there is a bright group of people

 

[Annie]

rall is a maroooooon...who the hell does he think fought the brits a piece of paper?

i am sure the brits said; blimey now they have gone a declared thier freedom....no use fighting now they have a piece of paper....lets go home....fucking stupid pricks.....cartoonists ...now there is a bright group of people

Ah but there are the Chris Muir's and Cox and Forkum. There are some very good editorial cartoonist, Ted Rall just isn't one of them, Tom Toles either.