The Troops Approve of the President

There is a small number of military personnel who are opposed to action in Iraq and who oppose President Bush, despite what certain trolls and people at the Daily Kos would have us believe. People cite donations to Ron Paul and outspoken critics like Wesley Clark as proof that a large number of people in the military oppose the President and our actions in Iraq and around the world. I speak to a a lot of military folks and most would love the war to be over but not until we have won. They do not want to be forced to leave in disgrace as we did in Vietnam, a war we were on the verge of winning until the Democrats stopped the flow of money. North Vietnam admitted it was on the verge of collapse and that the carpet bombing was taking its toll. Unfortunately, out government gave away the farm in Paris and this allowed the North Vietnamese to declare itself the victor despite the fact it lost every battle.

Most of the Democrats are still around and they want us to lose this war just as well. They would be content with pulling out (sounds Clintonesque) and leaving a lot of Iraqis to die and bringing shame upon our country once again. Maybe this is why the President is well respected by the troops who are on the ground. They know that he will not abandon them regardless of what it costs him politically. Even though this country has not been attacked since 9/11 and even though we have thwarted a number of plots to do us harm the constant barrage of left wing negative media has taken its toll on the President’s approval ratings. Though his numbers are low, they are 20 points higher than those of Congress. People can point fingers and try to figure out why Congress has low approval numbers but the plain truth is because they suck. They are terrible and cannot lead. They cannot get along and they fail to legislate properly. Members of both parties have their heads stuck up their rectal cavities and are unable to see what is really going on. Couple this with their childish behavior and you have your answer for the low number.

The President made a surprise visit to Iraq to see the troops and to get a first hand look at how things are going. He met with a lot of our brave men and women and he spoke to nearly a thousand of them. In Iraq, just as everywhere he goes to speak to troops, he was received warmly and the response to what he said was enthusiastic. Compare his reception by the VFW and American Legion to those received by the Democrats who spoke there and it is easy to see who veterans prefer to be at the helm.

The men and women of our armed forces want to get the job done and they want to come home. They however, do not want to be pulled out of Iraq until they have completed their mission and that is to win. Losing is not an option to the brave men and women who defend our freedom each and every day while lesser people than they fight like kids in the Capitol Hill sandbox.

Our troops do not appreciate Jack Murtha and his rush to judgment of some Marines who, after their day in court, had the charges dropped. The troops do not appreciate Harry Reid and his declarations that we have lost the war and that the surge is not working. They do not appreciate Hillary Rodham and her on again off again support for the troops based upon who she is peaking to on any given day. They do not appreciate her waffling on the war and her commitment and they realize she is not fit to lead them. They do not appreciate John Kerry who makes jokes at their expense and they do not care for Nancy Pelosi who is working to remove the things they need to fight and win.

Our troops do not care about the politics of the issue because their job is a serious one where any moment they can lose their lives doing what nearly every member of Congress sent them to do. They do not care who is pissed at whom in DC and they don’t care what party is in power so long as they get what they need to accomplish their mission. They would probably prefer to have Republicans in power because Republicans have traditionally supported our troops while the only thing the Democrats have been good at is sending them into battle and then abandoning them (Democrats got us into nearly every conflict in the last century). But the party in power means less to them than getting the support they need.

President Bush had a good visit with our warriors and none of them had crossed fingers while meeting with him, unlike a certain Senator from New York, a Senator the troops despise.

Sources:
Fort Hard Knox
My Way News
Snopes

Big Dog



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

17 Responses to “The Troops Approve of the President”

  1. […] Clark The Troops Approve of the President » This Summary is from an article posted at Big Dogs Weblog on Monday, September 03, 2007 This […]

  2. Billy Joe says:

    Gee Big Dog,

    Where to start. You pack your lengthy posts so full of BS, a response could take weeks.

    – Are there any opinion polls of military personel and their level of support for Bush or are you just pulling stuff out of your behind? If there such polls, how does recent polling compare to their support a couple of years ago?

    – So we can’t withdraw until we ‘win’ because it will hurt damage some delicate soul’s pride? Well hell then, throw $10 trillion dollars at it and deploy every available member of the US military and every veteran who can be recalled! Bring back the draft, raise taxes to pay for the war! 9/11 changed everything right? Put the economy on a WWII-like war footing with food/gas rationing, etc. You wouldn’t want anyone’s feelings to be hurt by not throwing everything we have it, would you?

    – Has it ever occured to you that Americans are upset with Congress because the Republicans are filibustering everything like a bunch of whiney cry-babies?

    – are the troops upset with Republicans like Gordon Smith (OR) who immedately following the ’06 election made waves by saying that the war has been incompetently and possibly even criminally executed or are they only upset with Democrats for saying such things?

    – What terrorist plots have been foiled in the US since 9/11?

    – While we haven’t been attacked (except for the Antrax guy) since 9/11, our troops AND EMBASSY are being attacked every single day we’re in Iraq. As I’ve said before, we’ve been attacked by people the President refers to as ‘terrorists’ more times under Bush than under every other American President COMBINED.

    As usual, your definition of success is closer to bin Laden’s definition of success. namely, more attacks on American troops = progress/winning.

  3. Big Dog says:

    I don’t recall saying that pulling out will hurt someone’s pride. Once again you state items not in evidence. I am sure there are quite a few veterans who would be happy to go on over however, we are winning despite the best efforts of you and people like you. Will you agree that if we pull out and there is a blood bath in Iraq or we are attacked here at home that you will go to Gitmo and that all other people who demanded an end will go with you? Are you so sure of the outcome that you will make this pledge?

    You must be on drugs or in a coma for the past 10 years. People are upset with Congress because Republicans filibuster everything? I cannot recall one filibuster. There are many tactics used to prevent bad legislation but I don’t recall them using a filibuster. Surely you have forgotten the obstructive Dmeocrats who threatened filibuster after filibuster and used every tactic to keep Republicans from having success. How do you square their behavior with the behavior that is taking place now. The only difference is that the roles are reversed. Remember the gang of 14 and all that crap, judicial road blocks and such. Of course, the approval rating was not as low then. No troll, the Democrats promised things that they cannot deliver and the ones who believed them are mad at them.

    Gordon Smith attacked the administration’s handling of the war but he did not attack the troops. I am opposed to people like Smith who changes his mind based on public opinion. He voted for the war and continued to vote for funding it and voted for money even after he stated the criminal aspect which means he participated in criminal activities, if in fact it was criminal. The wavering is what Hillary is doing based on to whom she speaks and what the polls say. Now, I do believe that I indicated the troops do not care who is in office so long as they get what they need from the people who sent them to fight. That includes both parties, in case you did not catch on.

    The NJ plot, the millennium plot, the Egyptian students with bombs, and on and on. Some you can’t know about yet. The anthrax took place around the time of 9/11 and was domestic, not foreign. Where are our embassies being attacked in any greater frequency than they were prior to Iraq? We were attacked for years and you cannot see that because your history starts on 9/11. As for our troops being attacked, we are at war you nimrod, they are going to get attacked. That is what happens in war. That is like saying that more Germans shot at our troops when we entered WWII. Jesus, use some common sense. You cannot use attacks on our troops as terrorist attacks against us (as a country). As for your assertions, you are pulling them out of your…

    The only polls I have seen are from before the 2004 election. Those are not valid at this point (though they showed strong support for Bush). I do not need a poll to see the level of support he gets from veterans and veterans groups when he speaks to them, especially compared to the Democrats who speak to the same groups. The reaction of the troops when he talks about winning and supporting them tells a big story.

    The fact is, no soldiers have to be forced to have a picture with the POTUS or to eat a meal with him. Soldiers had to be forced to have these things with HRC because they do not like her. Granted, my informal talks with the troops are not scientific but they are more than you have…

  4. Web Reconnaissance for 09/04/2007…

    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

  5. Robert says:

    Well BD, I don’t really approve of Bush’s handling of Iraq, I do realize the DEFEATIST Democrats have done their best to make sure we lose this thing. Ever since they (Dems) helped authorize the use of force they have been hoping for defeat so they can take advantage of it for political gain.
    (Billy Joe, is a moron if he believes otherwise)
    Democrats can not have a victory in any way in Iraq, that would prove that Bush’s theory’s and the Republican’s positions on the war were correct, therefore the Democrats would proven WRONG again….this is a political issue make no mistake.
    Edwards, Obama, Hillary, and even some Republican’s careers are on the line here, so whats a few American soldiers lives compared to that?

    Billy Joe, I understand you are pissed about the Iraq issue, with the Bush Lied crap, While I don’t believe he lied, he did take us into a war that we probably shouldn’t have been in.
    Once America’s sons are on the ground in a foreign land it is treasonous to behave the way some Democrats have behaved.

    BD, I would much happier if we set fire to every square inch of Iraq on our way out, than to keep trying to referee a playground brawl… Iraq has sapped our resources and our blood, as well as their own. these things can not be recovered and I don’t think the juice is going to be worth the squeeze. I don’t believe we are going to create an Ally in the WOT, At best we are going to create a Saudi Arabia type Ally, not that good IMO.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Robert,
    I cannot say that I am happy with how the war has been handled but as you point out, we can debate all day whether we should have gone there but now that we are there we need to win. You can’t unring a bell. The truth is, the troops still support the president because he backs them when others are trying to bring them home in shame.

  7. Virginia says:

    Bigdog,
    You are correct as always, and people like Billy Joe are just a piece of crap with a sewer brain. Thanks as always for your correct and informative articles.

  8. Billy Joe says:

    Virginia,

    Thank you for your insightful contribution. You really showed me!

    Big Dog said:

    “They do not want to be forced to leave in disgrace…”

    This sounds suspiciously close to saying that it would hurt someone’s pride. the soldiers are simply doing what they’re commanded to do. The fact that the war gets more violent ever year the US has been there is not because they’ve done a poor job of nation-building, a job that probably shouldn’t be done by the military anyway. It’s because our leadership from Bush on down basically had no post-invasion plan other than privatizing everything and ‘winning’, whatever that means this week. Why taxpayers should continue to throw huge amounts of money down the Iraq money hole is a mystery to me. I’d rather spend that money on rebuilding America, personally, but Republicans love Iraq more than they love the US. Funny thing… the Iraqi’s don’t want us there – even though there may be a bloodbath afterward. Maybe we should listen to them for once? The administration’s attempt at propping up the Iraqi puppet government are dismal failures as evidenced by the rise of sectarian militias and the general collapse of the Iraqi central government.

    I defy anyone one this board to post some verifiable metrics that prove we’re winning. You know, actual numbers that prove your point. Big Dog seems to think an increase in the # of US military deaths is proof that we’re winning. Does anyone have any other metrics? It’s funny how Republicans are perfectly willing to throw around numbers to, say, prove how great the economy is doing but when it comes to Iraq all they can do is post human interest stories about US troops saving Iraqi babies from water wells and other such things that could be accomplished for far less than $500 billion.

    I see my proposal to reinstate the draft, etc. went over like a lead balloon. I guess 9/11 didn’t really change everything. Isn’t it strange how Big Dog believes the current numbers of troops in Iraq are enough for us to ‘win’ yet we don’t actually have enough troops/control to stop the daily attacks on the Green Zone/US Embassy, let alone establish control in the rest of the country? Again, I guess I define winning in a different manner than Big Dog. To me, a sign that we’re ‘winning’ would be a decline in attacks on US forces. Or a decline in sectarian deaths in Iraq. Big Dog seems to think the opposite: the more US deaths there are, the better. The more Iraqis dying every month, the better. I think Big Dog is actually Osama bin Laden. There are too many similarities including their definition of success in Iraq.

    Regarding terrorist plots, wasn’t the millenium bombing something that the much-hated Clinton stopped? The other ‘plots’ are mostly just trumped up crap that are promptly forgotten after 48 hours of breathless coverage about their kung fu training in an abandoned Miami warehouse. If you insist on clinging to such examples as proof of Bush’s success in fighting terrorist though, you’ll have to reconcile these successes with the fact that they prove Iraq has not made us safer at home. Choose your poison.

    The only polls that Big Dog has seen demonstrating troop approval of the President are from 2004? Great. Once again, you’ve basically come right out and admitted you have no actual basis for the assertion you make IN YOUR OWN HEADLINE. Not only that, you didn’t even bother to try to verify it. Is it too much to ask you to back up your assertion with something besides anecdotes? Again, I think you guys will have to search long and hard for actual data to support many/most(?) of your assertions. BD is too lazy to find such data, as he admits when he says:

    “my informal talks with the troops are not scientific but they are more than you have…”

    Well Big Dog, actually you don’t have more than me. I’ve done your work for you and conveniently, it looks like I’m right and your wrong.

    From 2005:

    http://www.militarycity.com/polls/MILITARYPOLL.php

    And here’s one more with more recent polling data:

    http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

    Maybe Big Dog can find us alternative polling #’s to back up his assertion that the troops ‘approve’ of Bush? Otherwise, I look forward to a correction.

    Regarding Republican obstructionism (and the claim that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation, which is true if there’s a FILIBUSTER), watch this video and weep. If you can find *evidence* of similiar Democratic obstructionism by all means, show me:

    http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/2948-republican-obstructionists-block-vital-legislation?play=1

  9. Schatz says:

    A POLL of the military regarding their approval of the President? Now? You CANNOT be serious – it’s not like they are doing anything like fighting for the rights of sanctimonious folks like the troll who are sitting at home on the computer complaining about all his liberties and rights… Give me a break. I am sorry to be unpleasant – I really try hard not to be. But I feel it is my duty to stamp out stupidity where possible and this one is the winner of the day.

    Robert, I appreciate your statements about once our warriors are fighting we must support them and our country – anything else should be treason. As far as how the war started and whether or not we should be there, like has been iterated here ad nauseum, the debate is pointless. We are there. If our country (and president) could fight a war like it should be – like America should, full force, 100%, sweeping through with bombs and following up with only a dustbuster, then we wouldn’t still be there and we wouldn’t have to deal with these types of self-righteous arguments.

    I pray we will not see another attack – but our enemies continue to warn us of their intentions. It is a shame that some people are too blind or stupid to see the signs…

  10. Neocon News says:

    Worthy of Note on September 5, 2007…

    Enjoy the rest of the web:
    Anti-antediluvian: Fred Thompson, the reluctant Candidate?…..
    Atlas Shrugs: Germany: Massive Islamic Terror Plot
    baldilocks: The Next President of the United States
    baldilocks: Terror Plot in Germany
    baldilocks: Bush&#8…

  11. Billy Joe says:

    Schatz,

    If that was your attempt to ‘stamp out stupidity’, maybe you should try presenting some sort of logical case?

    You said:

    “As far as how the war started and whether or not we should be there, like has been iterated here ad nauseum, the debate is pointless. We are there. If our country (and president) could fight a war like it should be – like America should, full force, 100%, sweeping through with bombs and following up with only a dustbuster, then we wouldn’t still be there and we wouldn’t have to deal with these types of self-righteous arguments. ”

    Two points about your ridiculous statement above:

    1. Can you elaborate more on your brilliant strategy for bombing the entire country of Iraq? I mean, Big Dog (and Bush) is saying we need to stay in to prevent a bloodbath. You’re saying we should just kill everyone. Feel genocidal much? One day, wingnuts want to nuke the entire place (and contaminate Israel and our own troops with radioactive fallout, I guess). The next day, they tell us we need to stay to stop a bloodbath. Which is it?

    The argument that ‘we’re already there so we need to stay’ is simply stupid. If the police mistakenly raid your house, destroy everything in it because they think you’re building bombs and then they realize that in fact you weren’t, would you expect them to just camp out in your living room and arrest various family members anyway? My guess is you’d try to get them out and then you’d sue them to make them repair the damage they caused to your house.

    An easier – and more Christlike way – way of dealing with it would be to admit we invaded them by accident (remember, the only WMD they found were once that pre-dated Gulf War I; we probably sold them to Saddam). We could then grant the Iraqis their wish and leave their country. They’ve already been liberated of Saddam and held elections.

    Is that too radical for you tough warriors who are fighting Islamofascism thru the clever use of Mohammed balloons?

  12. Big Dog says:

    You see Billy Troll, you are incapable of seeing the truth. You make this analogy of the police as if we went there solely for WMD and since we did not find them we should say it was a mistake and leave. Here are all the reasons cited in the war resolution approved by Congress:
    The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

    * Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
    * Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
    * Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
    * Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”
    * Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. –
    * Members of al-Qaeda were “known to be in Iraq.”
    * Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
    * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
    * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
    * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
    Resolution

    BTW, those were not the only WMD we found but regardless, that is not the only reason we went there.

    And while we are at it, was this balloon comment supposed to be cute? I have 24 years of service in the Army keeping this country safe and free. How many do you have? I guess you are the tough guy hiding in your mommy’s basement calling us names that you would never ever call us face to face. Like I said before, you might say it once but that would be all. I can meet with you at the Vietnam Memorial 1100 next Saturday with the other guy. What say, are you ready to see what tough is or are you the one hiding?

  13. Schatz says:

    Billyboy – if you had read my comment correctly (and I realize that I used more than one-syllable words so that may have been difficult), I stated (in summary) that if we did not have to worry about people like you getting up in arms about our “genocidal” actions, we could have begun the war properly and been out by now. I am sure from the “dustbuster” comment you got some sense of my sarcasm but in truth had the US been more assertive and conducted the war less in line with appeasing liberal hearts and more in line with fighting an aggressive enemy, there would have been far more bombing before the troops ever set foot on the ground there. I firmly believe that our casualties would be lower; the cost to our country would be lower; and Iraq would be stronger and rebuilding quicker. It’s my opinion and I don’t have to prove it or justify it to you or anyone else. I don’t particularly care that you disagree or think me a racist – it is a valid strategy and one best in line with protecting our country.

    I realize I am fighting a losing battle trying to stamp out stupidity – you are living proof of that. However, you are also living proof of why some people believe that some gene pools should NOT be allowed to propagate.

    As far as the police coming into my home and all that, your analogy is hardly equivalent. I have rights as a citizen of this country. As far as I’m concerned the only rights terrorists have is to get to meet Allah (God, Buddha, whomever they recognize as their maker) as quickly as possible.

    Someone is always bringing up WMDs and using that (and their mistaken information that they were not there) as the only reason for our country’s action. As BD so eloquently outlined for you above, there are numerous reasons for this initiative and stamping your feet and plugging your ears and pretending that facts aren’t true because you don’t like them is not going to suffice in this situation.

    Again, irrespective of how this happened and who did what, our men and women are serving and sacrificing for this country and must be respected and provided everything they need to do their job. Period.

  14. Billy Joe says:

    Sure Big Dog,

    I’ll be inhaling helium from your moronic Mohammed balloon. Look for me somewhere near the Minutemen, the KKK, and the unemployed right-wing losers who are dressed up in the American flag, not desecrating it at all. You’re welcome by the way for the troop approval polls that I put in the earlier comments.

    I hope military recruiters show up at the Gathering of Eagles. It seems like there must be a lot of people there who believe 9/11 changed everything and that we’re now facing an enemy that is like Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia all rolled up into one indistinguisable mass of Islam. Imagine what an awesome fighting force we could assemble with a group of badasses that includes stay-at-home fathers who had to beg their readers for handouts so that they could attend the big gathering. And then there will be all of the fat guys who look like Karl Rove and have permanent cheeto stains on their fingers. Previously, such people were too old or had various ailments that prevented them from serving in the Long War ™ but now that the standards have been lowered in the military, even they can join and stick it to the terrorists.

    You should take a video camera and walk around asking everyone how they contribute & sacrifice in the War on Terror. Who knows, you might end up with a smash success of a right wing video. You’ll probably end up with a lot of sheepish guys making up excuses though.

    Look at the rubbish on the “Resolution”. It’s not even a declaration of war, is it? The whole ‘war’ is illegal from the get-go. I’m embarrassed that some (not all) of the Democrats voted for that garbage. It sure gives the President all the cover he needs in your eyes though, doesn’t it? We must stay and keep trying to nation build, no matter how poorly we’ve done at it, no matter how much it costs, and no matter how much the Iraqis want us out, right? I suppose you tell your gambling friends on a losing streak to keep playing, as well? Maybe you also tell drunk friends who just rear ended a parked car to keep driving because you’re already in the car and the engine is running?

    Now it looks like the big debate in right wing pro-war circles is should we stay in Iraq to prevent a bloodbath or should kill everyone there. Maybe you and Schatz can hash that out and we can all be edified by the sharp intellectual exchange that characterizes your intra-right wing communications? I mean his genocidal idea is diametrically opposed to yours, after all. Though, as you’re well aware, his degenerate, homicidal tendencies are found throughout the right-wing blogosphere.

    You should definitely write a blog post lambasting them for threatening to do what YOU (and Bush) say we’re over there trying to prevent from happening. Failure to do so makes your reasoning sound insincere.

  15. Billy Joe says:

    Schatz,

    You said:

    “in truth had the US been more assertive and conducted the war less in line with appeasing liberal hearts and more in line with fighting an aggressive enemy, there would have been far more bombing before the troops ever set foot on the ground there.”

    What was Shock and Awe then? Was that not enough bombing for you? Have you ever once considered what would actually be required to do what you’re proposing or are you just striking a macho pose without actually thinking it thru?

    You know it sounds suspiciously like you’re criticizing the commander-in-chief (and the military) for not fighting hard enough.

    Your treasonous comments will demoralize the troops and get you a spaking from Big Dog who seems to be blocking my posts because I mocked his Mohammed party balloons.

    Good grief… is mocking Mohammed party balloons the thing that’s finally going to push BD over the edge?

  16. Big Dog says:

    Hey dipwad,
    I am not blocking anything. Your comments get moderated and they get approved when I get to it. The world does not revolve around you. I actually sleep at night because i have a job that I go to so i can pay taxes for your family’s entitlements.

    Not one of your comments has been blocked. I just read them first to ensure you keep within the policy.

    As I stated before, unlike you, I pay for this site and I run it. I decide what goes on it and I decide appropriateness. You have no First Amendment rights at my site and the only reason anyone’s comments get posted is because I allow them to be.

    You have been blocked from a bunch of sites for your stupidity. I have been more tolerant of you than anyone else. Don’t push it.

    Perhaps if you spent more time writing at your site and less at mine you would not have to come here and beg people to visit you.

  17. Big Dog says:

    BT,
    Most of the folks there will be veterans (including the stay at home dad you talk about) so I doubt we will find any who are sheepish about going. Many were either there or in Vietnam. Come join us.

    Schatz is a woman and she is correct, if you go go big. Shock and awe was poof and ahh. There is a difference between killing all the enemy and killing every person, perhaps you missed that. The bloodbath is a concern because of the foothold Iran and others would get there after the carnage. Your blinders keep you from seeing that the resolution authorizes the use of military force. A declaration of war is not required to use military force but only Congress can declare war. If we sent our military in to rescue hostages from some country would we need to declare war? NO!

    Just so you know, war was declared in 1990 and that war has not ended so this action is technically a continuation of it, thus the citation of the violated UN resolutions. The war is not illegal despite your best efforts and misinterpretations. The Korean war never ended, there is a cease fire. We did not declare war in Bosnia, was that illegal too or was it OK because Congress authorized Clinton to do it (and he did not go to the UN)?

    Was it illegal for Clinton to launch missiles at Iraq? I just want to know your extent of knowledge on the legalities here.

    Funny how the left says the war is illegal but that crossing our border without permission is not…

    I don’t tell my gambling friends anything, that is their choice and none of my business. I don’t tell people who drink and drive to continue because it is AGAINST THE LAW.

    I know you are challenged when it comes to law (as you have shown) but try to keep up.