Saturday, September 01, 2007

WE COULD BE SPEAKING GERMAN OR JAPANESE




There is no doubt in my mind that if we had such an unpatriotic Congress and a Press supporting the "defeatists" during World War II, we would now be speaking German or Japanese. Perhaps, the West Coast would be Occupied by the Japanese and the East and Middle West by the Germans. With the Russians knocking on he door.

The negativism exhibited by the Socialist Press and the power hungry Democrats toward the Presidents campaign against Muslim evtremists would never have been tolerated during the Bloodiest Campaigns since the Civil War.

The Press and "fellow travelers"like Reid, Pelosi, Durbin and Murtha would have been ostracised if not jailed, if they spoke such disparaging words about a war effort that was in doubt from the day the combined forces under Eisenhower invaded Normandy, and at the same time MacArthur was leading the bloody slaughter toward Japan.

Compared to the losses in Iraq WWII was disaster of extreme proportions, but we won and tyrannical forces were defeated because we all stood together.

From the Normandy invasion on June 6th, 1944 to the of August we had 29,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 29,000 missing or wounded, and it got worse as the battles went on. In the battle of the Bulge we lost 19,276 killed in action between December 16th and January 10 thth of 1945, and a total of 89,987 killed missing or wounded.

In the Pacific the invasion of Tarawa 1.001 marines were killed in three days(11/20-11/23.1944). The battle for Saipan to establish an air base to bomb Japan into submission there were 3,426 killed and 13,160 wounded between June15,1944 and July 9,1944.

The battle that got the most media attention and turned into a war bond raising tour was fought 650 miles south of Tokyo during February and March of 1945. This battle resulted in the KIA of 8,86 marines and 19,189 wounded.
These five battles alone cost over 83,700 lives of Americans in uniform, but you didn't read or hear one peep from Congress about quitting!

The Germans didn't even attack us, but we went to war to rid the World of the Tyrant Hitler, and everyone including the Media stood behing the war effort. Japan made the mistake of bombing Pearl Harbor, and awakened a "sleeping giant". This is what we Americans were before the transplanted Communists and their willing accomplices began to support our enemies in Korea and then Vietnam.

Now they are at it in full force. They have the minds of America fixated on the death total in Iraq. The amount of money spent there that could be spent on their welfare programs, and the duration of the war. All in a negative perspective. There is no patriotism in any of these people despite their protestations to the contrary. We did rid Iraq of a tyrant, but his followers still are fighting US.

In my mind there is no option for surrender in Iraq, and despite what the "peace" candidates and the press call withdrawal. Surrender is what we will be doing if we leave before we clean out the rats nest in Iraq. As in Vietnam, we are not using the full force of arms at our disposal, but are fighting the war on the enemies terms.

I know General Petraeus will not recommend it. Not a politically astute career military man like him, but if I were leading the battle for Iraq as I believe would General Patton. I would drop leaflets from high flying planes, giving the civilian population 3 days to get out. And then I would bomb the whole place back to the stone age. Eisenhower did this to all the German Major Cities, and Truman dropped the "Bomb' not once but twice, and now we can still speak English in most states.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Democrats Hope For Failure In Iraq




While campaigning in New Hampshire this week Presidential front runner for the Democrats revealed what most Liberals fear the most.
Their defeat by the Republicans in 2008, because of some unforeseen attack on the U.S. by terrorists.

Hillary had this to say:“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again…”

This comment was immediately attacked by some of her Democratic rivals for the White House. Why? Because they don’t want the voters of America to be reminded that when it comes to terrorism, the Republican candidates are much more willing to do whatever it takes to protect the United States.

Senator Clinton isn't the only American to worry, about the possibility of another terrorist attack here at home. Vice Admiral (Ret) John Scott Redd, the Head of the National Counter terrorism Center, was granting an interview to Newsweek magazine in which he categorically stated that “We have very strong indicators that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the West.” When pressed on where, he continued, “Well, they would like to come West, and they would like to come as far West as they can.” Obviously, “as far West as they can,” would be the United States."

For all we know Iran already has a operative nuclear weapon. One that is often called "a suitcase bomb".The Iranians march toward nuclear weapon capability has even worried the new President of France.President Nicolas Sarkozy observed that Iran’s nuclear ambitions present “catastrophic” alternatives: “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” Both Messer’s Bush and Sarkozy are correct — though it may shock liberal Democrats to see the French standing side by side with the United States on an issue none of their candidates for president wants to talk about.(excerpt from col. Oliver North's article)

I have written about the safest place to be in the world at this time before. But I believe it needs to be addressed again at this important time in the future of this Great Country.

The safest place is right here in the USA, because the Islamist Terrorists know the Democrats and liberal "Rinos" in Congress are doing everything they can to assist the enemy in Iraq.Why would they "rock the boat" now?

The Democrats talk daily about withdrawing our troops, partitioning Iraq, and deny that there is any progress toward winning the battle for those in Iraq who want to live in a free Iraq.

The press, visual media and a great number of liberal blog sites bombard the American people every day with negative news about Iraq. The Left has already discounted as false and misleading the report that general Petaeus will give to Congress later this month.

Why, when things are going their way here in the political and media arena would they jeopardise the Democrats efforts to retake the White House?

The answer is they won't! We are safe until the Leftist fed American populace has made the mistake of handing over the White house to the "PC", secularist, anti-religion and weak on defense Party. The Democrats! Then when we are despised by the Iraqi whom we left to be massacred by the terrorists and taken over as a satellite of Iran. WE can expect all Hell to break loose!

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Another Reason Why Diplomacy is a Failure




The Left in the United States is enamored with the use of diplomacy to solve every problem. Iraq, illegal immigration, arms sales by Communist China, Russia, Iran and every other conflict between the USA must be solved by talking to the perpetrator.
The Left hates the strong approach of the use of our military , and have done their best to delay the building of a fence between our border with Mexico while the illegals daily, continue to pour across the border.

The latest example of the results of talking and "bribery" (NAFTA)by our Government is seen in the Press Release from the office of the President of Mexico. Despite all the talk while here in the U.S. about co-operating in the control of the flow of Mexican Nationals over the border into the U.S. Mr. Calderon,the President
of Mexico is shown meeting and sympathizing with Elvira Arellano.
Ms. Arellano entered the United States using a fake social security card. This is a crime in itself. She was caught and deported back to Mexico. Now she is pleading her case to the Mexican President who you will find in the quote below, has agreed to help this felon re-enter the United States via diplomatic channels.

The following appeared in The American Thinker today:President Calderón Receives Elvira Arellano
Tuesday, August 28 Press Release
Official Residence

"President Calderón received Elvira Arellano at the Official Los Pinos Residence today
During the conversation, the Mexican President listened carefully to Mrs. Arellano’s explanation of her current situation and her constant struggle to reunify migrant families.
The president offered Elvira Arellano all his sympathy regarding her compulsory separation from her son and offered her his support in this complex situation.
President Calderón ratified the priority his government places on the living conditions of Mexican migrants residing in the United States and repeated the need for an integral migratory reform in that country.
He also explained that his administration is working hard to create employment opportunities for Mexicans which, in the medium and long term, will enable a larger number of co-nationals to have opportunities for development in this country.
For her part, Mrs. Arellano asked the Mexican government to apply for a visa from the United States that will enable her to return to that country.
The Mexican president instructed Secretary of Foreign Affairs Ambassador Patricia Espinosa to order her department to undertake an analysis of the situation being faced by Mrs. Arellano and her son and to take the necessary steps with the US authorities to be able to respond to this request".

If this isn't an example of the failure to talk to people who either hate US or don't respect our Countries Laws and Sovereignty.

No politician running for the Presidency of the United States has declared that if elected they will deport all the illegals and build a fence or wall if needed to stop the hoards of illegals from coming across the border. They are to busy promising more "bread and butter" issues like National Health Insurance, more loans for college students, and the biggie. Immediately abandon the Iraq war against terrorism!

Pols have shown that border security goes hand in hand with the voting public desire for overall security for them and their children, but the "princely" representatives in Washington refuse to come together and solve this problem . They are too busy working on how to remain in their positions of wealth and power to consider the safety of the people who elected them.

This reminds me of Nero fiddling away as Rome burned! And unless we clean out the "rats nest" that is populated by the Leftist(both Democrat and Republican) in Congress, we too will go down as did The Roman empire. When the hordes of illegals grow so large they can dictate the policies and laws(possibly Sharia) that control our lives it will be too late!

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

The Pope And Michael Vick




The past twelve hours have been a period of intense mental strain for my sense of what as a Christian I believe is right and wrong.
No I don't question my ability to discern the difference. I am disturbed, however, by the apparent misunderstanding by those who write, report, blog and in many different ways deliver their views to the American public.

The first event that alerted my sense of the "tripe" that is being fed to us by the television media was during the ESPN Monday night football game.
The Show has been an award winning sports event for decades. But last night the announcers booth with Tony Kornheiser, Mike Tirico and "Jaws" Jaworski evolved into a plea to their audience to accept the apology of Michael Vick, and "let the recovery process begin".

As everyone knows by now Vick has pleaded guilty to bankrolling the dog fighting events held by him and a few of his fiends. They didn't mention that this star football player has been bankrolling this cruel and inhumane "sport" for the last seven years!

During these seven years there is no way to determine how many dogs died a violent death while Vick and his fiends watched, bet and enjoyed the spectacle.

Tony Kornheiser, paid 1.8 million dollars for his commentary on the show was the lead defender. His opinion was that since Michael Vick publicly apologised he should be allowed to return to football after he has served his sentence. A sentence delayed until December, for what reason? I would like to know.
This is a man who is a close friend of James Carville, and after his first appearance on Monday Night Football(8/15/05) was given a harsh review for his performance by Paul Farhi of the Washington Post. Kornheiser publicly called the critic " a two bit weasel slug"!He likes to dish it out, but don't criticise him!

Kornheiser is not the only "notable" coming to the defense of Vick. New York Nicks basketball star, Stepen Marbury said essentially whats wrong with dog fighting behind closed doors, they shoot deer and other animals don't they?

Boxer Roy Jones, jr. made the astounding defense based upon the fact that dogs by nature fight each other, so what's the big deal.

Football player Clinton Portis was quick to defend Vick as were author and activist Harry Edwards and ex-NFL player, Fox sport contributor and part time "rapper" Ray Buchanan. Buchanan made the news himself recently for cashing three checks in Miami with no funds to support the checks.

It is fine to say give a person a second chance, but what he did was a crime committed not once, but for seven years where gambling took place, and non-performing dogs were summarily killed.This is no ordinary crime. As you will recall serial killer Jeffrey Damler began by killing and torturing small animals before he moved on to young boys.

The second jolt to my sense of fair and unbalance/non-biased reporting occurred this morning when I read an article from Walter Williams, written for The Patriot Post.
Mr. Williams is a noted and respected Libertarian, sometimes Conservative Economist and Journalist.I enjoy reading most of his articles and books, but what provoked a man of "letters" to write an article attacking Pope Benedict XVI for an alleged statement that hasn't been published yet, baffles me.

The article excoriated the Pope for allegedly including in his second Encyclical that tax avoidance by using tax shelters is wrong.
The Encyclical hasn't even been published, but Mr. Williams wrote his article based upon an article written in the London Times. This is a rumor perpetuating a rumor, or at best hearsay being repeated. For good Journalism to exist the source should be valid and verifiable, not based upon rumors or leaks! Shame on you Walter Williams! Your animus to the Pope and Catholicism is showing.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

AMERICA'S PARADOXICAL LEFT




In the "hay days" of Marxist/Leninism there was only one left. That which Lenin brought to Russia from Carl Marx in Germany, Communism. In Russia, beginning in 1917, you were a Communist party member if you were chosen to be one.If you were not a member of the Communist party. You obeyed their rules or you were sent to the Gulag or shot!

Today here in the USA we have two Lefts. The dupes of the Leftist philosophy who have bought into the Peace movement as a way to save the World, and the "hard-core" Marxist-Socialists found in every College and University, and unfortunately in the groups known for their wealth and success in every area of endeavor other than government.

Dennis Kucinich in the U.S. House of Representatives, George Soros, the Media and the mega-wealthy and the Hollywood elite represent the second Left in America. They hate everything about the way our Government is run today. Today President Bush is the "hate object", and they will stop at nothing to change our beloved Country to their "Utopian" way.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich has introduced House resolution 808, that has 60 co-sponsors. This bill if ever passed, would create a Cabinet level position of Secretary of Peace. The area of his/her responsibility would be to create an Academy of Peace with curriculum developed for primary and secondary schools that would be mandated for the teaching of the Peace Process. It would provide funding for grants to select professors and students who make this their area of study.

This sounds like a good idea. After all who wouldn't prefer Peace to War? But history tells us, if we would only listen, that the way to Peace is to be strong not weak! Carl von Clauswitz advised this over one hundred years ago. The Peace movement doesn't want this!

In the United States, the peace movement is preparing young students to become virulent haters of our nation.
The people running today’s peace studies programs give a good idea of the movement’s liberal, anti-American inclinations. The director of Purdue’s program is co editor of Marxism Today, a collection of essays extolling socialism; Brandeis’s peace studies chairman has justified suicide bombings; the program director at the University of Missouri authorized a mass e-mail urging students and faculty to boycott classes to protest the Iraq invasion…

...First and foremost, they (Peace Movement leaders) emphasize that the world’s great evil is capitalism—because it leads to imperialism, which in turn leads to war. The account of capitalism in David Barash and Charles Webel’s widely used 2002 textbook Peace and Conflict Studies leans heavily on Lenin, who “maintained that only revolution—not reform—could undo capitalism’s tendency toward imperialism and thence to war,” and on Galtung,the anointed Father of today's Peace Movement in 1959, who helpfully revised Lenin’s theories to account for America’s “indirect” imperialism. Students acquire a zero-sum picture of the world economy: if some countries and people are poor, it’s because others are rich. They’re taught that American wealth derives entirely from exploitation and that Americans, accordingly, are responsible for world poverty.

..."The Peace Movement" maintains that the Western world’s profound moral culpability, arising from its history of colonialism and economic exploitation, deprives it of any right to judge non-Western countries or individuals. Further, the non-West has suffered so much from exploitation that whatever offenses it commits are legitimate attempts to recapture dignity, obtain justice, and exact revenge.

It is this mind-set that leads peace professors to accuse the U.S. of “state terrorism,” to call George W. Bush “the world’s worst terrorist,” and even to characterize those murdered in the Twin Towers as oppressors who, by working at investment banks and brokerage houses, were ultimately responsible for their own deaths.

In their distorted view, it’s America that is the wellspring of the world’s problems. In the peace studies world, America’s role as the beacon of opportunity for generations of immigrants is mocked, its defense of freedom in World War II and the cold war is reinterpreted to its discredit, and every major postwar atrocity (the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, genocide in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) is ignored, minimized, or—as with 9/11—blamed on the U.S. itself." preceding courtesy of Bruce Bawer of "CityJournal website.

Galtung is in fact a lifelong enemy of freedom. In 1973, he thundered that “our time’s grotesque reality” was—no, not the Gulag or the Cultural Revolution, but rather the West’s “structural fascism.” He’s called America a “killer country,” accused it of “neo-fascist state terrorism,” and gleefully prophesied that it will soon follow Britain “into the graveyard of empires.”

Though Galtung has opined that the annihilation of Washington, D.C., would be a fair punishment for America’s arrogant view of itself as “a model for everyone else,” he’s long held up certain countries as worthy of emulation—among them Stalin’s USSR, whose economy, he predicted in 1953, would soon overtake the West’s. He’s also a fan of Castro’s Cuba, which he praised in 1972 for “break[ing] free of imperialism’s iron grip.” At least you can’t accuse Galtung of hiding his prejudices. In 1973, explaining world politics in a children’s newspaper, he described the U.S. and Western Europe as “rich, Western, Christian countries” that make war to secure materials and markets: “Such an economic system is called capitalism, and when it’s spread in this way to other countries it’s called imperialism.” In 1974, he sneered at the West’s fixation on “persecuted elite personages” such as Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. Thirty years later, he compared the U.S. to Nazi Germany for bombing Kosovo and invading Afghanistan and Iraq. For Galtung, a war that liberates is no better than one that enslaves.

Galtung’s use of the word “peace” to legitimize totalitarianism is an old Communist tradition. In August 1939, when the Nazis and Soviets signed their nonaggression pact, the same Western Stalinists who had been calling for war against Germany did an about-face and began to praise peace. (After Hitler invaded Russia, the Stalinists reversed themselves again, demanding that the West help Stalin crush the Third Reich.), and President Roosevelt obliged them.
The peace talk, in short, was really about sympathizing with Communism, not peace. And it continued after the war, when Stalin’s Western supporters whitewashed his monstrous regime and denounced anti-Communists as warmongering crypto-fascists. “Peace conferences” and “friendship committees” drew hordes of liberal dupes, who didn’t grasp that their new “friends” were not ordinary Russians but the jailers of ordinary Russians—and that the committees were about not “friendship” but deception, exploitation, and espionage. And Communism is alive and flourishing here today.

If the image of tenured professors pushing such anti capitalist nonsense on privileged suburban kids sounds like a classic case of liberals’ throwing stones at their own houses,this will shock you. America’s leading Peace institution based upon it's endowment,is the University of Notre Dame’s Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies—endowed by and named for the widow of Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, the ultimate symbol of evil corporate America. It was the Kroc Institute, by the way, that in 2004 invited Islamist scholar Tariq Ramadan to join its faculty, only to see him denied a U.S. visa on the grounds that he had defended terrorism.

Peace studies students also discover how to think in terms of “deep culture.” How to prevent war between, say, the U.S. and Saddam’s Iraq? Answer: examine each country’s deep culture—its key psychosocial traits, good and bad—to understand its motives. Americans, according to this bestiary, are warlike and money-obsessed; Iraqis are intensely religious and proud. Not surprisingly, the Peace Movement's summations of deep cultures skew against the West. The deep-culture approach also avoids calling tyrants or terrorists “evil”—for behind every atrocity, in this view, lies a legitimate grievance, which the peacemaker should locate so that all parties can meet at the negotiating table as moral equals.
Students learn to identify “insurgent” or “militant” groups with the populations they purport to represent. The recipes for peace that flow from such thinking seem designed not only to buttress oppression but to create more of it. For if democracies consistently followed the Peace Movements recommendations, what they’d eventually reap would be the kind of peace found today in Havana or Pyongyang.

Speaking at a memorial concert on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, George Wolfe of Ball State University’s peace studies program suggested that we “reflect on what we as Americans may have done or not done, to invoke such extreme hatred.” The Kroc Institute’s David Cortright agrees: “We must ask ourselves . . . what the United States has done to incur such wrath.”

In short, it’s America that is the wellspring of the world’s problems. In the peace studies world, America’s role as the beacon of opportunity for generations of immigrants is mocked, its defense of freedom in World War II and the cold war is reinterpreted to its discredit, and every major postwar atrocity (the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, genocide in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) is ignored, minimized, or—as with 9/11—blamed on the U.S. itself.

A peace-oriented perspective condemns not only terrorist attacks but also any violent response to them.” How should democracies respond to aggression? Hold dialogue. Make concessions. Apologize. Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 capitulation to Hitler at Munich taught—or should have taught—that appeasement just puts off a final reckoning, giving an enemy time to gain strength. The foundation of the Peace Movement's success lies in forgetting this lesson. Peace studies students discover that the lesson of World War II is the evil of war itself and the need to prevent it by all possible means—which, of course, is exactly what Chamberlain thought he was doing in Munich. What they learn, in short, is the opposite of the war’s real lesson. In other words, if you want to ensure peace, worry less about freedom. Appease tyranny, accept it, embrace it—and there’ll be no more war.

That’s the Peace Movement's message in a nutshell—and students find themselves graded largely on their willingness to echo it. For while the peace professor argues that terrorist positions deserve respect at the negotiating table, he seldom tolerates alternative views in the classroom. Real education exposes students to a range of ideas and trains them to think critically about all orthodoxies. Peace studies, as a rule, rejects questioning of its own guiding ideology.

George Orwell would have understood the attraction of privileged young people to the Peace Racket. “Turn-the-other-cheek pacifism,” he observed in 1941, “only flourishes among the more prosperous classes, or among workers who have in some way escaped from their own class. The real working class . . . are never really pacifist, because their life teaches them something different. To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” If so many young Americans have grown up insulated from the realities that Vegetius and Sun Tzu elucidated centuries ago, and are therefore easy marks for the Peace Racket, it’s thanks to the success of the very things the Peace Racket despises above all—American capitalism and American military preparedness.

What’s alarming is that these students don’t plan to spend their lives on some remote mountainside.contemplating peace, harmony, and human oneness. They want to remake our world. They plan to become politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, journalists, lawyers, teachers, activists. They’ll bring to these positions all the mangled history and misbegotten ideology that their professors have handed down to them. Their careers will advance; the Peace Movements influence will spread as the USA becomes an effete feminist nation. And as it does, it will weaken freedom’s foundations.
Bloggers thanks to Thomas Brewton and Bruce Bower!

Monday, August 27, 2007

TERM LIMITS OR MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE




It doesn't require a rocket scientist to determine that the longer one holds a position of power, the more temptation he/she will be subject to by the "forces" of special interest.

Today we have a situation in the United States where a Republic that was formed by the founders of this Country has evolved into a government of special interests and power brokers.

The list is long, and affects both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats and Republicans come to Washington with promises still fresh from their election, but rapidly learn that to stay in this "wonderful" place of power, prestige and money they must "play ball".

Lobbyists with fists full of cash, and special interest groups court politicians from the day they arrive.The money starts to flow in from all special interest groups to aid the re-election that will be here before they learn the ropes. Herein lies the problem.

The framers of the Constitution envisioned a government run by the people through their elected representatives. They began as gentlemen farmers, slave owners some of them, but all part time politicians. No one was a full time politician, and that is what the framers of our Constitution intended.Until 1913 the Senators were chosen by each State Legislature. They also intended the Constitution to be a "rock solid" document. Not a "living Constitution", as it has become bastardized today, thanks to the Left leaning Supreme Court.

The Houses of Congress have become full time jobs for most of the Senators, and too many of the Members of the House of Representatives. An example of the longevity of the Senators is indicated by the fact that of the 100 Senators, 59 are 60 years old or older. Six Senators are over 80, led by Senator Byrd of W.Va. at 89. Nineteen are 70 or older. Even the College of Cardinals in Rome has an age maximum for voting in election of the Pope. It is 80.

It isn't "PC" to mention this, but there is no way people of such advanced age can relate to the 21-50 age group in America. The generation gap is just to great!Term limits would allow for "new blood" to enter the Federal Government.

But the worst threat to a peoples representative government, is the longer a person is in office the more comfortable he/she becomes with the "princely" life in Washington. They become a slave to their own comfort and power, and as such often are seduced by special interest money.

The argument has been made many times for term limits for all elected officials. The counter argument is that the folks back home can't afford to loose the power and position of the "senior" elected representative.

This stalemate has resulted in a public satisfaction rating of Congress of about 10% favorable and 90% unfavorable. This is the worst rating in the history of This Great Nation!

Even the President is limited to two 4 year terms in office. Roosevelt ,with his "Rasputin" like control over Congress during the WWII years, managed to serve part of a third term. There is no reason for the positions of Congress person or Senator to be a life time position.

There are those who will argue that my argument is specious, because they have to stand for reelection every two years in the House and every six in the Senate. But it is next to impossible to beat an incumbent with the "franking" privileges, and all the fund raising that goes on during his/her term in office.

The only way to return to a truly representative government is to have term limits and mandatory age retirement for elected officials.