Bravo Billy: News and politics

McCain Endorsed by Over 100 Admirals and Generals

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:58:44 GMT

I was getting unsure about the candidates. Then I decided to look at McCain. In looking aside from being endorsed by over 100 admirals and Generals, there all kinds of other leader that I have respect for. So I am saying to myself, "Well, if he is backing him, I'll vote for him for sure." It really sucks how the media can fuck with your mind. And I have to keep going to find out the truth for myself. If I had not been taught to seek the truth at Franklin, by my father and mother, I would be in trouble and at the mercy of the media. I used to think that that TV and Radio, and Newspaper was the media and now I know that the Internet is another media that they are addressing. I get most of my mail and news from the Internet. I thought I was unbiased because I was getting it off of the Internet. LOL.

Secret GOP Weapon The Scots-Irish vote.

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:41:27 GMT

CAMPAIGN 2004
Secret GOP Weapon
The Scots-Irish vote.
BY JAMES WEBB
To an outsider George W. Bush's political demeanor seems little more than stumbling tautology. He utters his campaign message in clipped phrases, filled with bravado and repeated references to God, and to resoluteness of purpose. But to a trained eye and ear these performances have the deliberate balance of a country singer at the Grand Ole Opry.

Speaking in a quasirural dialect that his critics dismiss as affected, W. is telling his core voting groups that he is one of them. No matter that he is the product of many generations of wealth; that his grandfather was a New England senator; that his father moved the family's wealth South just like the hated Carpetbaggers after the Civil War; that he himself went North to Andover and Yale and Harvard when it came time for serious grooming. And as with the persona, so also with the key issues. The Bush campaign proceeds outward from a familiar mantra: strong leadership, success in war, neighbor helping neighbor, family values, and belief in God. Contrary to many analyses, these issues reach much farther than the oft-discussed Christian right. The president will not win re-election without carrying the votes of the Scots-Irish, along with those others who make up the "Jacksonian" political culture that has migrated toward the values of this ethnic group.

At the same time, few key Democrats seem even to know that the Scots-Irish exist, as this culture is so adamantly individualistic that it will never overtly form into one of the many interest groups that dominate Democratic Party politics. Indeed, it can be fairly said that Al Gore lost in 2000 because the Democrats ignored this reality and the Scots-Irish enclaves of West Virginia and Tennessee turned against him.

Why are the 30 million Scots-Irish, who may well be America's strongest cultural force, so invisible to America's intellectual elites? It is commonplace for commentators to lump together those who are descended from British roots into the WASP culture typified by New England Brahmins, or the Irish, who are overwhelmingly Catholic. But it is political nonsense to consider the Scots-Irish as part of either.

The Scots-Irish are derived from a mass migration from Northern Ireland in the 1700s, when the Calvinist "Ulster Scots" decided they'd had enough of fighting Anglican England's battles against Irish Catholics. One group settled initially in New Hampshire, spilling over into modern-day Vermont and Maine. The overwhelming majority--95%--migrated to the Appalachians in a series of frontier communities that stretched from Pennsylvania to northern Alabama and Georgia. They eventually became the dominant culture of the South and much of the Midwest.

True American-style democracy had its origins in this culture. Its values emanated from the Scottish Kirk, which had thrown out the top-down hierarchy of the Catholic Church and replaced it with governing councils made up of ordinary citizens. This mix of fundamentalist religion and social populism grew from a people who for 16 centuries had been tested through constant rebellions against centralized authority. The Scots who headed into the feuds of 17th-century Ulster, and then into the backlands of the American frontier, hardened further into a radicalism that proclaimed that no man had a duty to obey a government if its edicts violated his moral conscience.

Matched with this rebelliousness was a network of extended family "clans," still evident among the Scots-Irish, built on an egalitarianism that measured a person by their own code of honor, courage, loyalty and audacious leadership. Noted Scottish professor T.C. Smout said it best when he observed that these relationships were "compounded both of egalitarian and patriarchal features, full of respect for birth while being free from humility." They demanded strong leaders, but would never tolerate one who considered himself above his fellows. Andrew Jackson, the first president of Scots-Irish descent, forever changed the style of American politics, creating a movement that even today is characterized as Jacksonian democracy.

The Scots-Irish comprised a large percentage of Reagan Democrats, and contributed heavily to the "red state" votes that gave Mr. Bush the presidency in 2000. The areas with the highest Scots-Irish populations include New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, northern Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, northern Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, southern Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and parts of California, particularly Bakersfield. The "factory belt," especially around Detroit, also has a strong Scots-Irish mix.

The Scots-Irish political culture is populist and inclusive, which has caused other ethnic groups to gravitate toward it. Country music is its cultural emblem. It is family-oriented. Its members are values-based rather than economics-based: they often vote on emotional issues rather than their pocketbooks. Because of their heritage of "kinship," they're strangely unenvious of wealth, and measure leaders by their personal strength and values rather than economic position. They have a 2,000-year-old military tradition based on genealogy, are the dominant culture of the military and the Christian right, and define the character of blue-collar America. They are deeply patriotic, having consistently supported every war America has fought, and intensely opposed to gun control--an issue that probably cost Mr. Gore both his home state of Tennessee and traditionally Democratic West Virginia in 2000.

The GOP strategy is heavily directed toward keeping peace with this culture, which every four years is seduced by the siren song of guns, God, flag, opposition to abortion and success in war. By contrast, over the past generation the Democrats have consistently alienated this group, to their detriment.

The Democrats lost their affinity with the Scots-Irish during the civil rights era, when--because it was the dominant culture in the South--its "redneck" idiosyncrasies provided an easy target during their shift toward minorities as the foundation of their national electoral strategy. Their long-term problem in having done so is twofold. First, it hampers their efforts to carry almost any Southern state. And second, the Scots-Irish culture has strong impact outside the South. This is especially strong in many battleground states. It is no accident that many political observers call the central region in Pennsylvania "northern Alabama." Scots-Irish traditions play heavily in New Hampshire--the only New England state that Mr. Bush carried in 2000. Large numbers of Scots-Irish settled in the southern regions of Ohio (called "northern Kentucky"), Indiana and Illinois. They were among the principal groups to settle Missouri and Colorado. They migrated heavily to the industrial areas in Michigan, which is one reason that George Wallace, ran so strongly in that state in 1968 and 1972.

But other than with those who identify with the Christian right, it would be wrong to think that the Republicans have their firm loyalty. For every Lee Atwater or Karl Rove who understands the Scots-Irish, there are others who privately disdain them. And sometimes not so privately--the most vicious ethnic slur of the presidential campaign came from Charles Krauthammer, after Howard Dean suggested that the Democrats needed to reach out to the "guys with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks." Mr. Krauthammer, who has never complained about this ethnic group when it has marched off to fight the wars he wishes upon us, wrote that Mr. Dean "wants the white trash vote . . . that's clearly what he meant," and that he was pandering to "rebel-yelling racist rednecks."

As with other ethnic groups, those inside the culture know how to read such code words, and there may come a time when the right Democratic strategist knows how to counter them in the manner that Mr. Dean contemplated. John Edwards is at his visceral best when his campaign rhetoric seems directed at doing that.

The decline in public education and the outsourcing of jobs has hit this culture hard. Diversity programs designed to assist minorities have had an unequal impact on white ethnic groups and particularly this one, whose roots are in a poverty-stricken South. Their sons and daughters serve in large numbers in a war whose validity is increasingly coming into question. In fact, the greatest realignment in modern politics would take place rather quickly if the right national leader found a way to bring the Scots-Irish and African-Americans to the same table, and so to redefine a formula that has consciously set them apart for the past two centuries.

Mr. Webb, a former secretary of the Navy, is the author of "Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America," just published by Broadway.

John McCain for President

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:08:21 GMT

I just finished reading a post by Oliver North with his backing and support for John McCain for President. It's like this if Oliver North says we need John McCain for President, because I have read Oliver North's books and the the integrity of Oliver North, I will support John McCain. I will leaning that way so far... That just clenched it...

Accountability in Iraq

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:50:02 GMT

Oversight and accountability are not the same thing as backseat driving after siphoning out half of the gas tank. Michael Yon

General Petraeus

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:57:28 GMT

"General Petraeus is running the show. Petraeus may well prove to be to counterinsurgency warfare what Patton was to tank battles with Rommel, or what Churchill was to the Nazis." Michael Yon.

I agree from what I have been reading about the "surge." The Surge is the counterinsurgecy measures that the United States has been taken in Iraq recently. They appear to be working. We should have been getting to know the people along time ago. This is the only way to get to know both your friends and your enemies.

Give me Liberty or Give me Death, Patrick Henry

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:48:23 GMT

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

REID'S BLOODY HANDS

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:38:24 GMT

Bill thought you would find this story from NYPOST.COM interesting:
REID'S BLOODY HANDS
Fresh from his declaration that "this war [in Iraq] is lost," Senate Demo cratic leader Harry Reid is moving quickly to hasten America's unilateral surrender.
And to cast the Middle East into murderous chaos.
Reid yesterday promised that the Democratic-controlled Congress will within days pass legislation requiring U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq over the six months starting Oct. 1.
Never mind that such legislation:
* Likely wouldn't pass either house of Congress . . .
* . . . and, even if it did pass, certainly wouldn't survive a veto.
So the point must be not to make policy, but to send a message: That Harry Reid's Democratic Party is against war in the Middle East, maybe?
Or that war in the Middle East is OK - so long as no Americans are fighting?
Or, maybe it's all about politics?
To be sure, Reid won't risk calling for an immediate pullout. He cautioned his party's bug-out-now wing to be patient, despite "the restlessness" of those who "voted for change in November [and] anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January."
The problem, said Reid, is that "George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief - and this is his war."
And there's the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity.
They refuse to present a unified front to the rest of the world - especially to America's enemies - because, in their pinched view, to do so would be to weaken their own prospects for retaking the White House in 2008.
No, Reid didn't repeat his declaration of defeat during yesterday's speech from the Senate floor.
It probably has dawned on him just how big a political blunder he committed - witness Sen. Chuck Schumer's gentle contradiction of the majority leader over the weekend, insisting that "the war is not lost."
Then again, Reid didn't have to repeat his original remarks - because the imposed timetable he announced, if enacted, would bring about precisely the same result.
That is, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from the region - if Reid thinks the bug-out would stop at Iraq, he's dumber than he sounds - followed by:
* A rapid, al Qaeda/Iranian-driven descent into regional chaos.
* Most likely, a general war.
* And, almost certainly, a Mideast nuclear-arms race as Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and (probably) Turkey rush to arm themselves in anticipation of an Iranian bomb.
At the very least, Reid has to understand that his rhetoric can only encourage short-run insurgent attacks on Americans in Iraq.
Their blood stands to be on his hands.
And that's a terrible price to pay for a political payday that's so tentative that even an instinctive gut-fighter like Chuck Schumer recoils from the risk.
Harry Reid needs to put a cork in it.
Today.
To sign up for Daily Newsletter Alerts, please visit http://www.nypost.com/php/newsletter/classify_newsletter_clicks.php

Talking about Schoolgirls bullied into stripping online - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:10:56 GMT

Supposedly the Geeks are relying on the anonymity of the internet. But a real Geek could track something down. So beware, y'all. and What are the gals doin' posing? It is their problems to begin with even with it only one person. Once you make something public it is no longer yours.

Quote

Schoolgirls bullied into stripping online - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com

Talking about Hundreds of Iraq Vets Are Homeless - Newsweek The War in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:34:40 GMT

Quote

Hundreds of Iraq Vets Are Homeless - Newsweek The War in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Gosh, Viet Nam veterans have been homeless and nobody seemed to have given a damn. No all of sudden people seem to care about the homeless veterans and wondering how this could have happened? It is so much bullshit!!!

Talking about WP: Gun remark kills outdoorsman's career - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:22:03 GMT

Quote

WP: Gun remark kills outdoorsman's career - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
I just got through reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights yesterday and read how the people have the right to bear arms. Gosh no wonder how they got upset about being called terrorist. Who are the people only those with wimpy guns? Non-assault weapons. Then when the terrorists are here who will fight them when our men are overseas all the time?

Talking about Live Vote: Do you agree with Bush’s plan? - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:26:47 GMT

Quote

Live Vote: Do you agree with Bush’s plan? - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com
It is Bush's vote to increase the troops. That sounds like LBJ. Is that a Texan? or did he learn from a Democrat? And when the Democrats get in power what will happen. Oh that's right, they are in power. Well, next is to get the presidency. Then more body bags will come back. The AntiChrist still has to come yet. He will reveal himself yet, with a peace settlement and the Russians will attack from the north on horseback...The Chinese coming from the east sound possible....Halleluia for the Lord is coming soon!

Talking about Angry homeowner spreads Christmas jeer - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:10:17 GMT

I really don't blame her. If someone had come and taken my home, even with the idea of eminent domain and a large sum of money, I still would have been angry and vindictive. So, Lord, I ask that you bless her and curse the development, in the name of Jesus Christ.

Quote

Angry homeowner spreads Christmas jeer - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com

Talking about Kilt shortage for Scottish soldiers - Europe - MSNBC.com

Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:05:11 GMT

Great Scot! Another Cluster Fuck other than Southeast Asia. Here we go again with everything!!!!

Quote

Kilt shortage for Scottish soldiers - Europe - MSNBC.com

Talking about Airport removes Christmas trees - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com

Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:19:13 GMT

They should have put up the menorahs. What was going on was the airport were coerced into taking down the Christmas trees because a Rabbi wanted a Menorah. I feel that it was being discrimating by taking the trees down. Why not recognize the Jewish holidays? Or now we cannot recognize Christian Holidays? Are forced to go secular?

Quote

Airport removes Christmas trees - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com

Talking about Rangel seeks to revive draft - Military Affairs - MSNBC.com

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:45:43 GMT

Quote

Rangel seeks to revive draft - Military Affairs - MSNBC.com
It does not surprise me. It is a Democratic Congress. The next thing will be escalation but the Republicans will be blamed for having gotten us into it. Another LBJ will get us going again some how...The Democrats are the ones who escalate and the Republicans get blamed. The military is pro Republican. I am too tired to write... so will stop...

Talking about WP: 'God gap' narrows in U.S. politics - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:56:26 GMT

Quote

WP: 'God gap' narrows in U.S. politics - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
Well, As the "God gap" narrows I see more and more natural disaster beginning to occur here in the USA. There are sleeper cells throughout the country of terrorist and more and more will acts of terror begin to occur. At first no one will think that they are the result of terrorist. Then all of sudden someone will wake up and it will happen with a large disaster occuring. But the main disaster will occur as a result of judgement from Almighty God. Fire, dryness from the east to the west, day after day. Even the terrorists will begin worry as their acts begin backfire literally upon them. There will be more trying to control the population with violence in the cities. Shortages of food will occur and shortages of gas and prices will erupt to places unknown before. As the Democrats try to control, the President will begin to bring more of the troops back home to help control the problems here. Iraq will begin to fall apart. Europe will fall apart. Then a leader will arise briefly as he shows himself to be the one with answers.
Chaos will occur more and more in Jerusalem and throughout the nations. The Russians will begin to grieve and call for a main person to help. The Russian Army will rise up upon horseback and head toward the south. The United States will call for peace, but peace will not occur and more and more disaster will occur throughout the land, floods, fires and children dying of unnatural causes. More and more leaders will be revealed as having preyed upon the disadvantaged. The election of 2008 will be the mose unusual election that this country has seen.

Talking about Landscapers refuse work for gay couple - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:24:05 GMT

Quote

Landscapers refuse work for gay couple - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com
As I read this I struggled whether to comment or not. I have a family member who informed they were gay. I respect their privacy and practice principles before personalities. I think anyone business should have be able to practice principles before personalities. When the Landscapers refused to work for the gay couple, as a business were they choosing or acting on principle.
A better to have handled it might have been, just to have not taken the job and saying we are unable to fulfill the job at this time, without giving any reason. So what has happened, is now the business owner has been forced into no longer being able to serve those that they wish to serve. What is so wrong with that? If a black business owner decided that he only wanted to serve black clientele, should he be forced to serve oriental also? It only becomes an issue when you make it an issue for me having refused to serve you.

Talking about WP: Troops warn against Iraq pullout - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:05:48 GMT

Quote

WP: Troops warn against Iraq pullout - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
Earlier I made a comment online about the change in politics and the elections. I am afraid that the American people are tired of the war in Iraq and wanting the pullout. And what will happen is chaos, then you think that gas prices were higher earlier, they will get really high when the Muslims take over. Then when the Muslims terrorists come to this country and when the soldiers are here and the economy is screwed up because the jobs are not there... What will the Democrats do then?

Muslims, Terrorists & the U.S.: A MUST READ

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:54:51 GMT

Before you read this, permit me to point out that America’s (and by extension, the western hemisphere’s) problem is departing from the Lord. 9/11 & 7/7 happened because America (Europe)’s defense are broken. And they are broken because they have become post-Christian, whatever that means. Those who depart from the Lord become easy prey for their enemies, please read JEREMIAH 50 v 6 – 8. And it is happening not only to the U.S. but the rest of the western hemisphere (and) the world who depart from God and embrace secular humanism. American brethren must awaken from prosperity induced lethargy and embrace prayer, selfless living and righteousness again. It is extremely unlikely that America (and the West) will not fall under the jackboot of their external enemies because of their internal enemies: compromise & secular humanism. May the Lord give understanding. Amen. PLEASE READ ON.

You may have seen articulate and convincing essay by Dr. Chong regarding the War in Iraq. If so, it is well worth reading again and again, so we never forget.

Who is Dr. Chong? He is a retired Air Force Surgeon, and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, connected to Veterans Affairs in California, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! (A Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)

Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA. A different spin on Iraq war.

This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United State
is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the
following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim
leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United State, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense!

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Talking about NBC: In Iraq, a trio of true prophecies - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:27:50 GMT

As a Viet Nam Veteran, at first I thought we were doing the right thing, but the longer we are there, I see another Viet Nam happening. I start to meet the veterans coming back in the VA hospitals and the families are breaking up, the men messed up. It would have been better to listen to George Washington. We keep getting involved in foreign wars, all for oil. Many of our veterans are homeless or someone is helping them get by. What's going on. The economy is going only because there is building here in Florida, but after that...??? I am losing my confidence in the Bush leadership.

Quote

NBC: In Iraq, a trio of true prophecies - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com
Skip

Talking about WP: Sex cases rarely tried at Naval Academy - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:12:44 GMT

The simple solution is for the academies to be male only.

Quote

WP: Sex cases rarely tried at Naval Academy - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
Skip

Talking about Witness claims al-Qaida leader lived in Calif. - International Terrorism - MSNBC.com

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:56:01 GMT

People get upset thinking that terrorist live among us. Right after 9/11 several people who were running gas stations disappeared. Wonder what that was about. They were from the mid east. I am sure that the Terrorist have an organization, people! Wake up! Do you suppose if you want to take over a country that it would be from the outside in....?

Quote

Witness claims al-Qaida leader lived in Calif. - International Terrorism - MSNBC.com
Skip

Talking about Robertson: Radical Muslims ‘satanic’ - Europe - MSNBC.com

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:50:56 GMT

Gosh, I wonder if anyone else has studied Islam like I have like Pat Robertson. It seems that people don't want to hear the truth when it is told. And they get upset when someone speaks out.

Quote

Robertson: Radical Muslims ‘satanic’ - Europe - MSNBC.com
Skip

Talking about Live Vote: Is ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ banner OK? - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:14:13 GMT

The sad part is that were it not for Jesus, the attention would not have been given. Had the banner read "Bong Hits 4 Bill" No one would have paid any attention unless a politician named Bill was upset. But since Jesus is involved, there's the rub. I wonder what would have happened had it read "Bong Hits 4 Mohammed."

Quote

Live Vote: Is ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ banner OK? - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com
Skip

Talking about 1 in 10 U.S. Iraq veterans suffers stress disorder - Mental Health - MSNBC.com

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:50:58 GMT

Quote

1 in 10 U.S. Iraq veterans suffers stress disorder - Mental Health - MSNBC.com
Skip
So What do they expect with a war going on? And now here we go again taking our young men sending them away from home and destroying families. And I bet that the financially well off did not do that... what do you think? So 1 and 10 Iraq veterans suffer and how many Viet Nam veterans came home and killed themselves? Walking body bags. Fuck this shit! Are you going to pay my bills?

Talking about Al-Qaida able to strike U.S.? - International Terrorism - MSNBC.com

Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:34:11 GMT

I think about international politics from time to time, but since I am living on a survival mode, I don't have time to really expound upon it. I am getting ready to go to work. I am thinking I wonder where they will attack. It will have to be somewhere that will have a fianancial repercussions. New York again? Atlanta this time? Chicago? I am trying to think of where it would be that would have an effect that would hurt the USA. I guess I am out of touch with everything. The brains in NSA and CIA will have to figure this one out. I have to go to my job and sell the terriosts their parts at Radio Shack. Is He able to strike? Of course, we are so dumb looking out for the rights of the little man and trying to offend anybody. Right here in Sarasota I see all kinds of build up happening.

Quote

Al-Qaida able to strike U.S.? - International Terrorism - MSNBC.com
Skip