Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Wish I'd said that, but...

I don't watch Television News, and I certainly don't watch the talking heads on any channel. I don't listen to 'talk' radio, etc.

So I miss out on some things that maybe I should be paying attention to?

Mainstream media's memorial day massacre


So how does the "public press" celebrate Memorial Day this year? By plastering stories across the front pages featuring alleged atrocities by our troops in Haditha, Iraq. "The Shame of Kilo Company," banners Time magazine, which originally reported the story. "Bloody Scenes Haunt a Marine," blares the Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times proclaims, "Iraqis' Accounts Link Marines to the Mass Killing of Civilians." On the day before Memorial Day, anti-war Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., appeared on ABC's "This Week," demanding to know "Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long? … We don't know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command … I will not excuse murder, and this is what happened."

Against the war, but for the troops? It's hard to maintain that hairsbreadth distinction when you're publicizing alleged misconduct by American troops before the facts are in, while American soldiers remain on the ground in Iraq. The military is already engaged in an ongoing investigation into the killings and will likely bring up Marines on charges that may carry the death penalty.

I avoid this crap for health reasons. On one hand my blood pressure can't stand it. On the other hand there's the health of those spewing this stuff to be considered. I want to reach out and 'touch' a few of them; just to get their attention, of course.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

The linkage

National security no longer a clear winner for the GOP

[edit] the above link now goes to a registration page. I ya don't know how to get around it, just read the quotes.

Bush's problems with Iraq and other national security issues have contributed mightily to the drop in his overall approval ratings, which have fallen into the low 30s.

Influential GOP political consultants agree that the turmoil in Iraq is by far the main reason for Bush's drop-off on national security. Beyond Iraq, they cite the current immigration debate and Bush's decision in February to allow Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates firm, to manage six U.S. ports.

"The Dubai Ports controversy was the tipping point," said Scott Reed, a prominent consultant who managed Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. "In that one instant, the country became skeptical about Bush's commitment to protecting our country. It also allowed his opponents to get to the right of him on the security issue. He's been unable to regain the high ground."

This aspect has been a major challenge for me.

I just don't GET it!

However I'm still convinced that Iraq AND Afghanistan (and numerous other spots around the world) were the right places to inject our military.

...donning foil hat

How ANYONE can justify that effort and dismiss issues concerning our borders is beyond me.

Iraq and the Dubai Ports controversy played only a peripheral role in MY disillusionment!

A bit of a rehash, and yet...

North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

Jerry Corsi further explores the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

I've been pointing this out in several posts, but missed a profound element:

Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.

Check it out folks.

Sunday, May 28, 2006

At it AGAIN!

I haven't aimed a post at Murtha for some time.

Update: Mr. Murtha's Rush to Judgment

I figure some mentally ill deserve pity, rather than scorn... but this guy needs to be locked up in a loony bin somewhere.

I ask myself what possible good he feels his current 'lynch mob' braying is doing, and I come up empty.

MAYBE some Marines did an evil thing? He doesn't seem to care what his pronouncements are doing to everyone else?

If he stood up and stated that IF these Marines are guilty they will be punished appropriately, but no... Murtha: New Scandal Worse Than Abu Ghraib.

Even linking the two events is just sad.

He's damning every person in uniform for what?

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Memorial Day Redux

Was reading Decurion and his bit about civilians.

Two thoughts popped up. The first was from General Order 11 (posted here below):

If other eyes grow dull, other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain to us.

And then this:


O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!


What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

John can probably quote Henry V, but maybe I needed a reminder this Memorial Day.

My hero!!

Screw him!!!!

Kissinger told China communist takeover in Vietnam was acceptables

Kissinger's comments appear to lend credence to the "decent interval" theory posed by some historians who said the United States was prepared to see Communists take over Saigon, as long as that happened long enough after a U.S. troop departure to save face.


Almost 2,000 more Americans would be killed in action before the last U.S. combat death in January 1973, the month the Paris Peace Accords officially halted U.S. action, left North Vietnamese in the South and preserved the Saigon government until it fell in April 1975.

A small price to pay for 'Peace with honor".

That's enough for now, my language inhibitor is reaching it's limit.

Check this out.

Dutch told to return land they won from the sea

They do not rail against the EU, instead blaming "environmental extremists". Arguably, their foes are the shoppers of Holland and Belgium, with their appetite for cheap goods from the Far East.

In order to allow ever bigger container ships into Antwerp harbour, a deeper channel is to be dredged that will speed up erosion of the banks.

It is that loss of habitat that must be compensated for.

Oh well, progress is progress, after all.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Boots on the ground

A civilian in Iraq

Read this...

Memorial Day

Check out: Memorial Day Website - with histories and facts

Armed Forces Day came and went with barely a whisper, Memorial Day probably will as well. A day off from work, or a long weekend.
Memorial Day sales everywhere.

Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service.

General Orders No.11, WASHINGTON, D.C., May 5, 1868

1. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are organized, comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers, sailors,and marines who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead, who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes? Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains, and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds.Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

If other eyes grow dull, other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain to us.

Let us, then, at the time appointed gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with the choicest flowers of spring-time; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved from dishonor; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon a nation's gratitude, the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan.

2. It is the purpose of the Commander-in-Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to lend its friendly aid in bringing to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.

3. Department commanders will use efforts to make this order effective.

By order of


Adjutant General


Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Another Shithead? via FR

He was a Marine Hero - NOT

He is not like some of the current crop of phony vets dancing with the anti-war crowd, but it's still an interesting tale.

Hand out the tin foil hats

I hate to repeat myself, but wait...

Someone else is talking, and making my points.


The opening:

This author finds Liberal aversion to religion -- with the politically correct exception of Islam -- amusing. This is because we regard contemporary liberalism as itself a primitive faith, having much in common with Islam.

True believers in each faith are impervious to rational argumentation and become enraged and belligerent when their beliefs are challenged. Their shared craving for power over the lives of their fellow human beings is palpable, as is their fascination with and yearning to submit to tyrants (see Jimmy Carter) or to the will of Allah.

Since the true believers in the Church of Liberalism are weak and immature, they enjoy vicarious participation in the power and control wielded by tyrants, hence their affection for Stalin, Mao, Che, Fidel, Like children they overestimate their strength in order to compensate for their real impotence and lack of intellectual comprehension.

Liberals and Islamists share a conviction of their special virtue and benevolence. They're so convinced of their righteousness that it becomes a moral duty to convert or destroy those who disagree. Not for them the modesty or self effacement of the Christian or the Jew or the Buddhist who knows how far short he falls of the ideal life. No need to spell out rational positions when you know you're just smarter, kinder, just a flat out exemplary human being. After all, you're in touch with your feelings, and you know, in the words of the late lefty Reverend, William Sloane Coffin, "The heart is a little to the left."

The closing:

If sharia law ultimately prevails in America it will be thanks to the shared fantasies of Jihadi Islam and contemporary liberalism.

There's a distinction he left out... if sharia law comes to our shores, the liberal/left will be screaming for our help and will find it is too late.

William of Ockham on illegal immigration, sorta

From The Logic Times

Was talking to a friend about the illegal immigration issue and we kinda wound up asking each other WTF is going on. Seems we're not alone in trying to figure out what the President and Senate are doing.

Surely, these politicians, susceptible as they are to the least gust of public opinion, are out marching, arm in arm, in protest of this abominable problem that nobody – that no voter – likes. Surely, William of Ockham would declare, they are thinking this…

But they are not. At the tail end of many weeks spent ignoring their master (public opinion), politicians continue to defy logic – and Ockham’s Razor – with behavior that makes absolutely no sense…

Yet the answer, as William of Ockham would tell us, should be simple. Politicians must be refusing to acquiesce to public opinion because they know something the public does not, something compelling, something that trumps the politician's instinct for self-preservation. To us, the illegal immigration issue is a chip shot; to them, it must appear a dilemma (di lem ma: A situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive). There is no other explanation for such un-political behavior as has been on display.

I posed, essentially, this same question in earlier posts and posited this seemingly bizarre behavior could explained by the agenda of those driven to bring the New World Order to fruition.

My friend suggested that, instead of some conspiracy based on a hidden agenda, perhaps many of those in D.C. are just dumber than rocks.

Ol' William just might agree.

Monday, May 22, 2006

And then?

Consul-At-Arms has a post up here that is of some note.

It addresses with clarity the nuts and bolts a genuine effort at immigration reform requires to work, and most certainly deals with details I hadn't thought of.

To paraphrase the old saying... From his mouth to the U.S. Senate and President Bush.


Wandering back from the brink of my manic obsession with the whole 'New World Order' scenario I find myself still puzzled and frustrated.

Illegal immigrants to this country are being exploited by capitalists and communists alike. Business seems to want (or need) cheap labor and the communists want (or need) downtrodden workers.

BTW, if the communist reference needs explaining just take a look at the many of the signs at the recent pro-immigration protests.

These two broad groups are diametrically opposed in pretty much every aspect save this one. I have to ask why they appear to be working for the same apparent goal?


If that isn't confusing enough... We have our military deployed in foreign lands to preserve our security and known criminals can cross our borders with impunity. Again I have to ask why?


We're being asked to accept a lessening of our civil liberties in the name of security while outright criminals are about to be told that if enough people break a given law we'll simply change the law to suit them. Yet again why?


I'm reminded of Charles Fort and his Book of the Damned, or maybe the less esoteric view of Douglas Adams ("Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") is applicable "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."

Maybe there's no vast conspiracy hell bent on making the United States merely a part of some larger entity, but SOMETHING is going on... Perhaps it just a big duck?

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Good stuff!

Have you ever seen an email describing great heroism or personal commitment on the part of one of our troops, and note a link to Snopes on the bottom? One that comes to mind involves Marine Capt. Brian R. Chontosh of Rochester, N.Y., who received the Navy Cross for extraordinary heroism in Iraq.

Snopes link

Why the link to Snopes? Because it's an email, and we want someone to verify its authenticity. We have all received an inspiring email that we passed on to everyone in our address book, only to have someone show us a link on Snopes disputing the claim.

What I want to know is; why do we have to hear about our military heroes through blogs and emails and not the front page of the New York Times? Or CNN? And is it really so hard to believe they still exist?

Our heroes lose the banner headlines to the International Red Cross calling for the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and the vehicle-born explosive that killed 14 and wounded 26 in Baghdad. What about Sgt. Witkowski who threw himself on a grenade and saved 3 other Soldiers?

Sgt. Witowski link

During a tour of the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes, my husband noted that there was only one Soldier awarded the Medal of Honor for the Global War on Terror, and that went posthumously to Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, credited with protecting the lives of scores of lightly armed American soldiers.

SFC Smith link

Only one? This lack combined with popular headlines might lead a person to suspect that our military is producing more inhumane jailers than actual heroes.

The truth is that if the American Press has ever been unbiased, it seems to have lost its ability to even pretend to care about fair reporting. Although it can't report the deeds of courage and sacrifice, it does manage to report when our military becomes desperate enough to pay the local papers in Iraq to report what they have done right. Of course, that seems to be wrong as well.

These are times when national pride is called "jingoism" and the flying American flag might be looked upon as "provocative", because of those who wish to subdue the sole superpower or pretend that the elected official that sits in the Oval Office isn't really the leader of the free world. Antiamericanism seems to be spreading like wildfire and the American press is the primary accelerant, and America's heroes are lost in the smoke.

Those of us who live in or near military towns actually see some of the good things our troops do on the front pages of our newspapers. Although I still suspect the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer of holding views that do not support OIF, Ft. Benning's troops, though they come from all over the country, are proudly held up as hometown heroes. A fallen Soldier is a life with a story, not a statistic added to the toll of the War on Terror.

Is this too much to ask of our national news carriers? Can an American service man or woman not be treated with the respect they deserve? Are we so afraid of reporting anything besides the ugliness of war that we must also forget to honor the warrior?

War can be just, but war is never glorious, and those who serve will be the first to tell you so. There is no doubt that it brings out both the best and the worst of humanity. No one expects the press to stop reporting the worst, but to be fair enough to also report the best. If the American press must be biased against America, so be it, but don't overlook America's heroes in the process.

While I'm 'out there' with the lunatic fringe

Check out: Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

You'll note this is an official U.S. Government site.

Here's an interesting quote:


We are launching the next generation of our common security strategy to further secure North America and ensure the streamlined movement of legitimate travelers and cargo across our shared borders. To this end, Canada, the United States, and Mexico will work together to ensure the highest continent-wide security standards and streamlined risk-based border processes are achieved in the following priority areas:

1) Secure North America from external threats

* Develop and implement a North American traveler security strategy, to include consistent outcomes with compatible processes, for screening prior to departure from a foreign port and at the first port of entry to North America.

* Develop and implement a North American cargo security strategy to ensure compatible screening methods for goods and cargo prior to departure from a foreign port and at the first point of entry to North America.

* Develop and implement a North American bioprotection strategy to assess, prevent, protect, detect, and respond to intentional, as well as applicable naturally occurring threats to public health and the food and agriculture system.

2) Prevent and respond to threats within North America

* Develop and implement a strategy to enhance North American maritime transportation and port security.

* Develop and implement a strategy to establish equivalent approaches to aviation security for North America.

* Develop and implement a comprehensive North American strategy for combating transnational threats to the United States, Canada, and Mexico, including terrorism, organized crime, illegal drugs, migrant and contraband smuggling and trafficking.

* Enhance partnerships on intelligence related to North American security.

* Develop and implement a common approach to critical infrastructure protection, and response to cross-border terrorist incidents and, as applicable, natural disasters.

3) Further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders

* Develop and implement a border facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at ports of entry within North America.

* Identify, develop, and deploy new technologies to advance our shared security goals and promote the legitimate flow of people and goods across our borders.

Whatever else this might mean, it seems clear that the intent is NOT to secure our borders directly.


I'm willing to consider this approach, but why don't we hear about it up-front from those in charge in Washington?

Saturday, May 20, 2006


Almost missed it!

It's Armed Forces Day

Oh well!

Update: Before you start sending me tin-foil hats, and sending me to look for 'black helicopters', just read the CFR link.
It's important to note that this is NOT something new.

What IS new is the cold, clear fact that we can see the CFR report made manifest just now in the Senate.

North American Union to Replace USA?

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, If effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

I respect Corsi, and I had seen this document he refers to before, but hadn't made the connection he does..

Please take the time to read the CFR Document and note that it can easily be read as the 'play book' being used in Washington.

From the CFR Report:

Expand temporary migrant worker programs. Canada and the
United States should expand programs for temporary labor migration
from Mexico. For instance, Canadas successful model for managing
seasonal migration in the agricultural sector should be expanded to
other sectors where Canadian producers face a shortage of workers
and Mexico may have a surplus of workers with appropriate skills.
Canadian and U.S. retirees living in Mexico should be granted
working permits in certain fields, for instance as English teachers. 
Implement the Social Security Totalization Agreement
negotiated between the United States andMexico.
This agreement
would recognize payroll contributions to each others systems,
thus preventing double taxation.

If this sounds at all familiar then read the thing, please.

Then ask yourself if it's the vision you have for the future.

Friday, May 19, 2006

More lightness from Free Republic (and the DOD)

Boy, do you Army types have something to look forward to.

New MREs in the works

It ain't Ham 'n Mothers, but with enough Tabasco sauce anything is edible, I guess.

On the lighter side via MilBlogs

Doc in the Box has pictures up and this one cracked me up.

Marine fighting position

I don't have enough readers here to crash his server so His whole album is here for those of you interested.

Illegal (?) immigration, other issues.

An 'Oh Shit!' update: Bush opposes English as a National Language
Just the one story for now.

My earlier link (here) to Jerry Pournelle's piece nudged me into checking in on his writings with more frequency. His point about the tens of millions of new citizens destroying the 'melting pot' has been verified by other observers.

He has added additional thoughts on the the problem, use the same link and just scroll down. It's scary reading!

His is not the only thoughtful voice out there sounding the alarm at what the Senate and President are trying to do. See: The Immigration Blog for more.


Mona Charon has a column (here) that brings to light a little discussed aspect that also needs attention.

In 1970, six percent of all births in the United States were to illegal aliens. In 2002, that figure was 23 percent. In 1994, 36 percent of the births paid for by Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid, were to illegals. That figure has doubtless increased in the intervening 12 years as the rate of illegal immigration has risen.

Any child born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. He or she is instantly eligible for panoply of social services, food stamps and other forms of aid. When the child reaches the age of 21, he can petition to have his parents and siblings declared permanent residents.

The so-called "anchor baby" phenomenon is a hidden trap door beneath any guest worker program, because a significant number of guest workers will have babies while in the United States and will thus elude any effort to send them home. (There are other problems with guest worker schemes: the difficulty of enforcement, the creation of permanently alienated subgroups such as Europe has created of its Muslim immigrants, and the problem of uprooting even the non-citizen children of guest workers who have spent years in the United States.)


Additional elements are becoming visible even as the Senate continues to give birth to this monstrosity.

From Pournelle: The Senate of the United States has now voted to allow illegal immigrants to collect welfare and social security even if they have been using false documents.

The leader of the immigrant movement says they have registered 1,000,000 immigrants to vote and they will show their voting power. I had thought election fraud was a crime? Apparently no more.


We can hope that the House will stand firm, but I doubt it.

To abuse Dan Simmons' Time Traveler story idea (here). Another future historian may well be writing about the moment the United States committed cultural suicide.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Boots on the Ground

I'd like to draw your attention to:

Civilian with Boots on the ground in Iraq

Frank is a civilian contractor in Iraq. He speaks candidly about what he sees, but doesn't confuse what he sees with any broader picture. He also has been doing this for almost 2 years and has a perspective that is valuable.

Plus... he just plain writes well.



From DAV Magazine

Commission May Punish Disabled Vets

Courtesy of Consul-at-Arms

Jerry Pournelle Reflects on Immigration

In part:

Under currently proposed legislation, we will import up to 100 million -- that's 10^8 people -- legally and legalized illegals -- in twenty years or so. I do not believe that the Melting Pot can deal with that dilution to the American character.

In fact I do not believe that we can assimilate the number of illegal immigrants we already have. The legal immigration program already admits too many people at the bottom end of society if you count families: elders imported to be on Social Security because the Old Country doesn't have decent pensions. And so forth. Add to that the illegal immigrants and the very character of the American Experiment in Self Government is at stake.


The American Melting Pot model of assimilation to a single language, and a wide-based Judao-Christian ethical and religious culture, might be able to endure nationalization. Might. That would be an interesting experiment. But it is 100% certain that the Melting Pot cannot handle great dilution, and that it takes time for it to work. Adding tens of millions of illegals plus larger numbers of legal immigrants will destroy the model and force our national democracy into the typical defects of a large national democracy, and thus to extinction. This is about as certain as anything we know about history.

Apparently no one in Washington understands this.

If they did, they would close the borders NOW, not in 2008.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Perceptions and stating the obvious

NOTE: This piece is in work and will change.

There are several things that should be obvious to everyone as of today.

1 - We have men and women in harm's way doing a great job dealing with the front door, while our back door remains unlocked.

2 - The New World Order is being shoved down our throats by politicians and lobbyists. We are being assailed not only by the liberal/left, but by so called 'conservatives'.

3 - There is a real threat from Islamic Imperialism.


How do I define a conservative position?

1 - Smaller government.
a - Fewer taxes
b - States Rights superior to Federal rights
c - A balanced budget
2 - A Strong military and the will to use it for defense from armed aggresion.
3 - Freedom for ALL religions and freedom FROM all religions.
4 - Judges that do interpret the law, not make new law
a - Judges that do not think international legal standards have the same weight as our Constitution.
5 - A strong Second Amendment
a - We should be able to own any weapon we can afford to buy.

How do I define a liberal position?

1 - Bigger government
a - more taxes
b - States Rights subsumed by Federal rights
c - A balanced budget, just larger
2 - A weak or no military, it's functions are handled by law enforcement.
3 - Freedom for some religions.
4 - Judges that not only overturn bad laws, but make new ones.
5 - no weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens.


Monday, May 15, 2006

THe Hidden Imam

The Role of Hidden Imam in the history and the politics of the Islamic republic of Iran

There's a lot of stuff in the article I was aware of, but it still makes for interesting reading.

Signs of Hidden Imam's Appearance
Gregoire de Kalbermatten (4) has mentioned the signs of the appearance of Mahdi : "The universal precursory Sign of the return of the Mahdi, "He who Guides," consists of the general invasion of the earth by Evil and the victory of the forces of Evil over those of Good. Without such a manifestation, the entirety of humanity would be engulfed by darkness?. The Sign consists of the following traits: the people will neglect prayer, squander the divinity which is conferred on them, legalize untruths, practice usury, accept bribes, construct huge edifices, sell religion to win this lower world, employ idiots, consult with women, break family ties, obey passion and consider insignificant the letting of blood. Magnanimity will be considered as weakness and injustice as glory, princesses will be debauched and ministers will be oppressors, intellectuals will be traitors and the reader of the Koran vicious. False witness will be brought openly and immorality proclaimed in loud voices. A word of promise will be slander, sin and exaggeration.

"The sacred Books will be ornate, the mosques disguised, the minarets extended. Criminals will be praised, the lines of combat narrowed, hearts in disaccord and pacts broken. Women, greedy for the riches of this lower world, will involve themselves in the business of their husbands; the vicious voices of the man will be loud and will be listened to. The most ignoble of the people will become leaders, the debauched will be believed for fear of the Evil they will cause, the liar will be considered as truthful and the traitor as trustworthy? They will resort to singers and musical instruments...and women will horse ride, they will resemble men and the men will resemble women. The people will prefer the activities of this lower-world to those of the Higher-World and will cover with lambskin the hearts of wolves."

Okay folks, I told ya so!

The first layer of "smoke and mirrors' comes via:

Plan to Deploy Guard at Border Worries Mexico

White House officials said Mr. Bush assured Mr. Fox that a permanent National Guard presence on the border was not being considered.

So what is the point of deploying the Guard at all?

Can we say "November"?


And then: Reform bill to double immigration

The immigration reform bill that the Senate takes up today would more than double the flow of legal immigration into the United States each year and dramatically lower the skill level of those immigrants.
The number of extended family members that U.S. citizens or legal residents can bring into this country would double. More dramatically, the number of workers and their immediate families could increase sevenfold if there are enough U.S. employers looking for cheap foreign labor. Another provision would grant humanitarian visas to any woman or orphaned child anywhere in the world "at risk of harm" because of age or sex.
The little-noticed provisions are part of legislation co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida, which overcame some early stumbles and now has bipartisan support in the Senate. The bill also has been praised by President Bush, and he is expected to endorse it as a starting point for negotiations in his prime-time address to the nation tonight


These proposed increases are in addition to the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens already in the U.S. whom the bill would put on a path to citizenship. These figures also do not take into account the hundreds of thousands of additional immigrants who would be admitted to the U.S. each year under the guest-worker program that is part of the bill.

Can we say "capitulation"?


So our President will deploy Guard forces to the border to assist the Border Patrol to do nothing for a short time, say, until November in the hopes of shoring up his crumbling conservative base...

While our Congresscritters sell the future of America to be re-elected.

Politics as usual, one might say, but the clock is ticking.

Sunday, May 14, 2006

From VDH - in case ya missed it.

Sword Without Leniency

I've pointed much of this out before, but consider it a reminder.

In 636 A.D., the caliph Umar gave these instructions to the commander he sent to Basra during the conquest of Iraq: “Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept if from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”

Nearly fourteen centuries later, another Muslim leader, President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who like Umar is fulfilling the Prophet’s injunction to “fight those who believe not in Allah” — has issued a similar summons to President Bush, leader of the most powerful nation in what once was called Christendom: “Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teaching of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question to you is: ‘Do you want to join them?’”


Once again, we see the continuity and coherence of Islamic jihadist tradition across fourteen centuries. Yet here in the West, we refuse to listen to what the jihadists tell us and take them seriously in their own terms. We dismiss this continuity as an illusion masking the “real” causes, which must be material and psychological. No, no, we are told, the pursuit of jihad is not the fulfillment of a spiritual command, the expression of belief sanctified by Allah. Rather, it is the distorted rationalization for political dysfunction, lack of jobs and economic opportunity, distress over the absence of a Palestinian homeland, anger over the occupation of Iraq, self-esteem wounded by intrusive globalization, or lingering resentments of Western colonialism and imperialism.


Read the rest.

Another tidbit to feed my paranoia

White House threatens Buy American veto

I haven't studied this bill in any detail so my comments will be limited to the above story.

The White House contends that the prohibition on purchasing foreign goods for the U.S. military will cause "irreparable damage" to U.S. efforts to build alliances and coalitions.

There was a time not too long ago when this bill would have been unnecessary, but I wonder if it's too little too late?

If we don't have the capacity to support our military without foreign purchases we are in deep shit.


Think about it folks, once again the New World Order rears it's head.

I'll be doing some further research to see if this is as it appears.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Me Paranoid? via FR

Hmmm... Maybe not?

From CNN and Lou Dobbs yet?

This list even misses some.

Think about it.

Be afraid, be very afraid!

How would things change if the Democrats reigned?

With the likes of Pelosi and Conyers at the helm in the House, the next two years will be pay back for Clinton's impeachment and for the 2000 Supreme Court decision that gave the presidency to Bush. Beyond the political retribution lies a Democrat agenda that could be far worse than even the Clinton-Gore era of idiocy.

The author makes several points with citations that are noteworthy.

To expand and clarify (I hope)

Rather than simply update my last post, I figure I'll make a new one.

It's pretty clear that I'm upset about this President making this speech just now. But he is not the first to try to sweep illegal immigration under the rug.

And I'm not changing parties in mid-stream, but I would IF and only IF there was a real alternative.

Thing is... there is no apparent excuse for having a Global War on Terrorism that doesn't include our own back yard! Or a Department of Homeland Security that may monitor my phone calls, but can't stop a semi-literate peon looking for a better life from entering the country by illegal means.

These observations are not profound or original, but that fact only makes them harder to understand. It ain't rocket science!

Friday, May 12, 2006


The planned speech!

My post is gonna be pretty critical of our President, so tune out now if you offer blanket approval.

As part of what he calls a comprehensive approach to immigration, he is also pushing measures to tighten border security.

Words don't mean phizz.

There is nothing he might propose about border security that he couldn't have already done!

I am deeply saddened that this speech is being made at all. Action was required years ago.

Bush's claim of being tough on national security issues has long since hit the drain.

So I'm trapped. I voted for, and supported our entry into the 'Stans and Iraq, but with each passing day I find myself fumbling over how to explain (let alone understand) the administration's bizzare behavior.

There is a clear and present danger that has been ignored. Iran claims to have thousands willing to 'martyr' themselves, and we share information with the government that REALLY controls their easiest path into our country to do the deed.


I could care less about the tracking of phone calls....

How's about tracking those crossing our borders illegally?

If I thought the liberal/left was capable of better I'd change parties tomorrow, as it is, we're screwed.

The only GOOD thing is that I'm likely to be dead (statistically) before I have to learn spanish.

A puzzle and some perspective.

Many are voicing outrage and concern over the USA Today Story on the NSA. even though it may be old news according tho this story.

I'm not quite sure why?

Total privacy in this day and age is a convenient fiction at best. Your local water company can probably determine if you have a case of diarrhea by changes in your water usage. Cameras are everywhere. Credit card transactions are monitored to check for fraud. Bank transactions have been monitored for years to catch criminals.

Credit monitoring companies monitor your bill paying practices. Telephone calls can be monitored by the phone companies and that includes cell phones. Every online transaction, be it web surfing or email is monitored by at least your ISP. It's likely everything you've ever done on the internet is residing somewhere on-line.

Then there's always the good old Tempest attack.

So there are literally thousands of people with access to your private data in one form or another, how is it suddenly worse when the government accesses this data in the hopes of stopping another 9/11?


There are ways to regain your privacy, cash only transactions (so long as they're less than $10,000) are safer that plastic transactions, so trash the cards.

Get rid of ALL phones and communicate only via snail mail, preferably encrypted and through a mail drop, if possible. lose your Social Security Number or get a phony.

Don't work anywhere that pays a payroll deduction, etc to the government.

Don't pay for insurance of any sort.

Toss your drivers license (and any other licenses) or get phonies.

Don't vote.

Never use perscription drugs.

And on , and on.

Myself, I'm more concerned some yahoo who works for a credit card company will sell my identity than I am Bush is listening to my phone calls.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Hey.... WAKE UP!!!!

Update below.

The future belongs to Islam

Make of Hal Lindsay what you will... this article stands as another tocsin, at least. It concerns the recent letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush.

Most secular analysts interpreted the letter as merely a stalling tactic designed to send the U.N. Security Council back to the debating table to give Iran more time to process uranium and develop its nuclear program. In reality, this is a letter from a devout believer in the Quran that is following the Quranic pattern to the letter. He believes that if the "gracious invitation" to submit to Allah and the Muslim religion is refused, then he is fully justified by the Quran to use all military means possible to subject the "pre-warned, obstinate infidels to either convert, subject or be killed."

Ahmadinejad's own word are chilling:

Mr. President, according to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God [Allah] and follow the teachings of the divine [Muslim] prophets. We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking toward a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?"

Rest the rest and focus.

Update: LGF has weighed in on this issue: A Declaration of War?


The Kurds very definitely have an agenda, but this is worth keeping an eye on.

Turkish, Iranian armies build up forces along Iraq’s only quiet area

ANKARA, Turkey – Hundreds of Kurds had to flee their homes in the mountain village of Razqa, Iraq, when artillery shells came whistling down from Iran early this month, blowing apart their homes and livestock.

In Turkey, meanwhile, armored personnel carriers and tanks rumble along its remote border with Iraq's Kurdish zone. Turkey has sent tens of thousands of fresh soldiers in the last few weeks to beef up an already formidable force there.

From Orson Scott Card - in case ya missed it

American Soldiers and How We Use Them

Card covers many aspects of the relationship America has with it's military. I picked out a few points for emphasis.

Because, of course, the academic-intellectual-media Establishment of America has nothing but contempt, in the main, for our military. The Establishment regards itself as the heirs of the Vietnam anti-war protestors (which is why they just hate it when I call them, accurately, the Establishment), and their attitude toward the military ranges from suspicion to hostility.

They assume that anyone who enters the military must be a murderer at heart, who can't wait for a chance to torture people or club babies to death. Or at least turn their backs while other soldiers behave that way.


Donald Rumsfeld did not go down to the Pentagon with a blank purchase order on which the generals could write down their wishes, which it would be Rumsfeld's job to grant.

Instead, he went there as one of the most accomplished and conniving bureaucratic maneuverers ever to work in Washington -- and that's saying something.

Rumsfeld had an agenda, partly derived from President Bush and partly from his own experience in the past. Rumsfeld knew that the military, if left to itself, would choke on its own institutional debris.

For all fulltime professional military cultures share some common traits. For one thing, during peacetime, it is not the great military leaders who rise, it is the conniving bureaucratic generals. As a conniving bureaucrat himself, Rumsfeld knew exactly whom he was dealing with, and he was better at the game. (Plus, he had the ear of the Commander-in-Chief, and he was a civilian.)


It isn't just the press, of course. It's the entertainment media -- just as much a part of the Establishment, and thrilled to take opportunities to spread anti-Bush propaganda.

Of course, the obvious ones, like David E. Kelley with his endless, unfunny, and lying attacks on the Bush administration in Boston Legal, are not terribly effective.

There is, however, a much subtler campaign going on -- which may, in fact, not be a campaign at all, but simply a natural response to the extreme leftist and anti-American culture that permeates the Establishment in Hollywood.

Here's where it shows up:

Now take Lost -- one of the best shows in the history of television. They have the character Sayid Jarrah (Naveen Andrews), who was a torturer in the Iraqi military. So far so good -- he's a fascinating, complicated, tormented character because he managed to keep his conscience but can't get rid of his memories.

But apparently somebody said something scornful to a Lost writer about how they must have been pressured by the government not to tell the "truth." Yeah, they said, you can show Iraqi torturers, but nothing about American torturers.

So, to be fair and evenhanded (they suppose), they do another flashback episode in Sayid's story in which his first experience as a torturer is actually under the direction of Americans who captured him during the Gulf War back in 1991.

In other words, the Iraqi torturer learned torture from American soldiers.

A third example: 24. Again, a brilliantly effective show. They show a Counter-Terrorism Unit (CTU) that has a torturer on staff, ready, by the use of drugs or brutality, to extract needed information on an emergency basis -- from anyone, including American citizens.

Moreover, the leading character, Jack, does his own ad hoc torture -- "off the books" -- in order to get results. Totally justified, because of course there's such time pressure to finish the whole thing in twenty-four one-hour episodes.

Ostensibly, 24 doesn't even seem to be against the use of torture. But they show it as a routine policy instrument of the U.S. government.


Here's the kicker:

It is arguable that 24 is pro-military and pro-American. But the effect of these three shows is to plant and reinforce the idea in the minds of the viewers of the program that the American government and the American military torture prisoners whenever they need to. And if the namby-pamby higherups won't authorize it, the guys in the field will do it themselves, without authority, in order to save America.

He amplifies this element further but you can read the whole thing yourselves... I would add "The Unit" as dereserving the same criticisms.


One last bit I'd like to highlight because it echos a point I've made many times:

So when the Establishment slanders these American soldiers, exposing them to greater risk of death or betrayal or, if captured, torture, it is not just "entertainment." It is a gross evil being perpetrated against those who are risking most in defense of our civilization.

How long would these television writers last -- as writers, anyway -- under a government led by a Saddam or an Osama or the Taliban? They can only write such slanders against their own nation's troops in a free country defended by soldiers like ours.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

The Somber Flag - from Mudville

The Somber Flag

Greyhawk's post links to The Flag That Refuses to Go Away in The Boston Globe.

He also links to one of his (Greyhawks) older posts about "Stolen Valor" from B.G. "Jug" Burkett.

Went through all that linkage to establish a context for some thoughts.

The Globe article can be summed up in these two paragraphs:

One would like to think the POW-MIA flag had transcended the reactionary uses to which it was put by a political fringe that abused the memory of lost heroes to raise money and win elections. For many Americans, the flag is simply a token of sorrow for the entire Vietnam episode, and it functions also as a sign of concern for a new generation of US troops who are at war. But the darker meaning dominates. After Vietnam, a self-pitying sense of victimhood defined the American mood. That generated a vengeful determination never to be shown up as weak -- or captive -- again. That, in turn, brought us to the disastrous present, which is explained by recalling that the men on whose watch the disgrace of Vietnam climaxed included Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Their wars against Baghdad (Cheney's in 1991, Rumsfeld's now) were supposed to stifle the Vietnam syndrome once and for all, but Iraq, in pathological recombination, has only quickened it.

No wonder the grief-struck flag refuses to go away. When we Americans behold that silhouetted bowed figure -- the prison tower, the barbed wire -- we may feel the pointed shame anew, but now we recognize the unknown image. We ourselves have become the prisoners of war; it is our own government that has taken us captive. The black flag at last belongs to all of us.

The author seems convinced that nothing is worth fighting for, except maybe who wins elections. His argument seems similar to those upset by the movie about Flight 93 and continued efforts to avoid showing 9/11 scenes from New York and The Pentagon. Ignore painful stuff and it'll simply go away, or perhaps more on point - quit bringing up stuff that makes the liberal/left look weak and ineffective.


However, I must gently disagree with Greywolf's assertion at the bottom of the post that Rambo was an insult to Vietnam Veterans.

Setting aside the sequels, "First Blood" served as a cathartic of sorts for many 'Nam vets.

Forget the rampages with the M60 and all that mayhem... one or two lines captured the feelings of many of us - "And I did what I had to do to win, for somebody who wouldn't let us win!" and "I want, what they want, and every other guy, who's came over here, spilt his guts, gave everything he had, ONCE, for our country to love us, as much as we, Love...IT. That's what I want."

I've heard those lines, and variations, echoed in dozens of 'rap' groups and by many of the 'Nam vets I've helped with VA issues.

Just a counter-point to the also true notion that Rambo painted an almost cartoon picture of us Vietnam vets.


Had the pleasure of hearing B.G. "Jug" Burkett speak at the Kerry Lied rally in DC, and had the even greater pleasure of shaking his hand and thanking him for his work.

But there's always been a small element of his position that troubled me.

He seems to connect patently phony vets and PTSD as having something nefarious in common. In a sense that is quite true, but only part of the story.

In the case of Vietnam there was something going on with real vets before PTSD came along. Initially it was called the Post Vietnam Syndrome. Happily it affected only a relative few in negative ways, but it's roots were in the way 'Nam vets were treated when we returned.

There's a short bit here that adequately defines the distinction I'm pointing to.

Burkett seems to suggest that there are phony vets who use a phony mental condition to stain the honor of all vets, and I don't buy it.

Monday, May 08, 2006

Islamic Imperialism

An interview with the author of "Islamic Imperialism, A History'

FP: The Left often likes to paint Muslim political ambitions as reactions to Western encroachments. What would your view be of this interpretation? What, for instance, was 9/11 about? The victims of American imperialism striking back?

Karsh: I am afraid that such perceptions have long transcended the traditional divide between left and right, representing as they do the received wisdom among many educated Westerners since the early twentieth century. In this view of things, Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, are merely objects - the long-suffering victims of the aggressive encroachments of others. Lacking an internal, autonomous dynamic of their own, their history is rather a function of their unhappy interaction with the West. Some date this interaction back to the crusades. Others consider it a corollary of the steep rise in Western imperial power and expansionism during the long nineteenth century (1789-1923). All agree that Western imperialism bears the main responsibility for the endemic malaise plaguing the Middle East to date.

In Islamic Imperialism: A History, I challenge this mega-narrative by showing that Islamic history has been anything but reactive. From the Prophet Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. These fantasies gained rapid momentum during the last phases of the Ottoman Empire, culminating in its disastrous decision to enter World War I on the losing side, as well as in the creation of an imperialist dream that would survive the Ottoman era to haunt Islamic and Middle Eastern politics to the present day.

This in turn means that if, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of a universal Islamic empire (or umma). In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, Osama bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam’s war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.


Even during the age of the crusades, the supposed height of civilizational antagonism, all Christian and Muslim rulers freely collaborated across the religious divide, often finding themselves aligned with members of the rival religion against their co-religionists. The legendary Saladin himself spent far more time fighting Muslim rivals than the infidel crusaders; while he was busy eradicating the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem he was closely aligned with the Byzantine Empire, the foremost representative of Christendom’s claim to universalism.

So, I would rather refer to the millenarian confrontation between the worlds of Islam and Christianity as a “clash of imperialisms” rather than a “clash of civilizations.” But then, while the West had lost its imperialist ambitions by the mid-twentieth century (having lost its religious messianism centuries earlier), the fuel of Islamic imperialism remains as volatile as ever, and this ambition for world domination is the primary threat confronting the West today.


Only last month Mu’ammar Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, predicted the imminent Islamization of Europe. “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe,” he stated in a public speech aired on al-Jazeera television. “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” “Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey, and adds it to the European Union,” he went on. “That’s another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe.”

While this prediction will probably be dismissed by many as a delusional gloating of an eccentric leader, the truth of the matter is that to this day many Muslims and Arabs unabashedly pine for the reconquest of Spain and consider their 1492 expulsion from the country a grave historical injustice waiting to be undone. Indeed, as immigration and higher rates of childbirth have greatly increased the number of Muslims within Europe itself over the past several decades, countries that were never ruled by the caliphate have become targets of Muslim imperial ambition. Since the late 1980s, Islamists have looked upon the growing population of French Muslims as proof that France, too, has become a part of the House of Islam. In Britain, even the more moderate elements of the Muslim community are candid in setting out their aims. As the late Zaki Badawi, a doyen of interfaith dialogue in the UK, put it, “Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.” To deny the pervasiveness and tenacity of this imperialist ambition is the height of folly, and to imagine that it can be appeased or deflected is to play into its hands.


A book to add to my reading list.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Wow!!! - and from the L. A. Times yet - Stating the obvious

Draft Hollywood

We play with our children, read books, go to work and enjoy recreations only because people with guns stand ready, willing and able to kill other people with guns who would kill us if they could.

It's sweet to forget this and therefore difficult to keep it in mind. "It is hard for those who live near a Police Station to believe in the triumph of violence," as T.S. Eliot wrote. That's us — we Americans, protected by a mighty military that by and large obeys the rules of our republic — safe enough, and keeping much of the world safe enough, so that we find it hard to believe in what would happen if that protection failed.

But these fighters do keep us safe. And because keeping us safe is harsh, dangerous work, we should glorify them, exalt them in story and song by way of appreciation.

"United 93" — the film celebrating the heroic civilian attempt to retake a hijacked plane on 9/11 — opened last week. That's great. Well done and about time. But now, let's have some war movies.


In short, we need war movies now even more than in the '40s. So why aren't we getting them? One reason surely is that, in the years since World War II, our self-assurance as a nation, the self-assurance necessary for the waging of war, has been shaken, and Hollywood reflects that. The change occurred against the backdrop of postwar history, but I believe it has as much to do with our cultural values, their uses and misuses, as it does with events. The Western ethos, with its Christian roots, demands that we look to our own sins before judging the sins of others. It's amazing how quickly, after the war ended, Hollywood began to examine the ways in which Americans shared the moral failings of the Axis


In taking our self-examining ethos to these extremes, we have lost a kind of wisdom, wisdom that acknowledges the complexity of human life but can move through it to find the simple truth again. While assessing the intricate failings of our moral history, many of us have lost sight of the simple truth that the system that shapes us is, in fact, a great one, that it has moved us inexorably to do better and that it's well worth defending against every aggressor and certainly against as shabby and vicious an aggressor as we face today.

Not only have we lost this kind of wisdom, but I think that a handful of elites — really only a handful of academics, journalists and artists — has raised up a golden counterfeit in its stead. With this counterfeit wisdom, they imagine themselves above the need for patriotism; they fantasize they grasp a truth beyond good and evil, and they preen themselves on a higher calling than the protection of our way of life. And all the while they forget that they imagine and fantasize and preen only by the grace of those who fight and die and stand guard to secure those freedoms that our system alone guarantees.

When war comes, as it always will, and when it is justified, as it is now, some nuances and shades of gray have to be set aside. It is time, instead, for faith and for ferocity. Our enemies have these weapons, after all. Our movies should inspire us to have them too.

I sure can't add much to the above. What HE said!

The NEW hyphenated American via FR

Perhaps the Last???

Been nice knowin' ya, America

Will the next generation of U.S. citizens consider themselves Americans or post-Americans? Better still, why wouldn't they consider themselves post-Americans? Considering how quickly this republic is unraveling, is it too late to ask rhetorical questions?

"Post-Americanism is the state of having moved beyond loyalty to the U.S.," according to Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Mr. Krikorian believes he coined "post-American."

"Somebody for whom the interests of the U.S. are not paramount and no longer feels greater loyalty to his fellow Americans. They have become cosmopolitans," he says.


The elites in Washington, D.C., New York City and the United Nations seem to have plotted a journey to lead America into the New World Order where a cosmopolitan global citizen is no more connected to his country than a sociopath to his fellow man.

My seemingly paranoid rantings about ths issue have taken on the trappings of reality, or mass psychosis of some sort!

Maybe it's just evolution in action and those of us railing against the inevitable are trying to bring back the horse and buggy?

In any case; the notion of America, as we've known her, disappearing is rising to the level of mainstream thought, and deserves acknowledgement.

Saturday, May 06, 2006


Referring to my last post.

Viet Nam (and the vets) are not the sole parties dealing with this phenomenon, although we've been dealing with it for decades.

Imagine the idea of having each and every thing you've done judged 'after the fact'! Then imagine you're in Mogadishu, or Fallujah, or in your bedroom.

When the rules change because some lawyer or politician needs to feel better about themselves, who gets caught in the crossfire.

Shucks... yer playing a simple board game, and suddenly the rules change. No lives are at stake and it's truly trivial... Make ya happy?

Friday, May 05, 2006

Politicians and Lawyers, Oh my!

Hopefully the link will work this time?

The Armies of Ignorance

Whenever there is talk of ROEs,, there is a sharp backlash from the troops, including military lawyers. Restrictive ROEs make generals and politicians back in Washington feel more comfortable, but they get troops killed.

There's a pattern indicated here, a pattern of micro-management that's been seen before in many places. In the case of Iraq there's been an ebb and flow of this 'back seat driving' that's been puzzling.

Running a war by the opinion polls and trying to factor a sort politcal correctness into war fighting strikes me as the formula for poor morale at least.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Illegal immigration - stating the obvious

Some thoughts:

There is a single issue amongst the plethora of issues that matters; is flaunting the laws of this country a good thing. If so, where does it stop?

To answer that simple, but fundimental question, one has to ask if the transnational thinking folks are just simply right, and the rest of us are just old-fashioned?

There are those that seem convinced that the United States is passe.

Our courts have noted international law in some opinions, our congress seems hell-bent on making things like NAFTA take priority over our 'common good'.

All the other arguments and posturings are a smokescreen to cover this simple issue.

While we're discusssing racism and jobs and all the PC crap involved we are being sold out.... it's clear to anyone who opens their eyes.

The secondary issue about security is awash in trivialities as well.

WE can't stop terrorist from coming into this country without stopping ALL illegals from coming in..... and that just ain't gonna happen so long as the weasels run DC!

Me.... I'm building my stash of food and ammo. Anyone that comes to my door demanding my help will get a rude awaking as long as I'm breathing!

Yeah, I''m pissed. I see discussions here and there that infuriate me.... I nearing 60 and there's a real chance that I will see the U.S. as I've known and served disappearing before I die.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

This has been around a while, but....

Someone has updated it a bit. via FR

Dear Civilians,

"We know that the current state of affairs in our great nation has many civilians up in arms and excited to join the military. For those of you who can't join, you can still lend a hand. Here are a few of the areas where we would like your assistance:

1. The next time you see an adult talking (or wearing a hat) during the playing of the National Anthem---kick their ass.

2. When you witness, firsthand, someone burning the American Flag in protest---kick their ass.

3. Regardless of the rank they held while they served, pay the highest amount of respect to all veterans. If you see anyone doing otherwise, quietly pull them aside and explain how these veterans fought for the very freedom they bask in every second. Enlighten them on the many sacrifices these veterans made to make this Nation great. Then hold them down while a disabled veteran kicks their ass.

4. (GUYS) If you were never in the military, DO NOT pretend that you were. Wearing battle dress uniforms (BDUs) or Jungle Fatigues, telling others that you used to be "Special Forces," and collecting GI Joe memorabilia, might have been okay when you were seven years old. Now, it will only make you look stupid and get your ass kicked.

5. Next time you come across an Air Force member, do not ask them, "Do you fly a jet?" Not everyone in the Air Force is a pilot. Such ignorance deserves an ass-kicking (children are exempt).

6. If you witness someone calling the US Coast Guard 'non-military', inform them of their mistake---and kick their ass.

7. Next time Old Glory (the US flag) prances by during a parade, get on your damn feet and pay homage to her by placing your hand over your heart. Quietly thank the military member or veteran lucky enough to be carrying her---of course, failure to do either of those could earn you a severe ass-kicking.

8. Don't try to discuss politics with a military member or a veteran. We are Americans, and we all bleed the same, regardless of our party affiliation. Our Chain of Command is to include our Commander-In-Chief (CinC). The President (for those who didn't know) is our CinC regardless of political party. We have no inside track on what happens inside those big important buildings where all those representatives meet. All we know is that when those civilian representatives screw up the situ! ation, they call upon the military to go straighten it out. If you keep asking us the same stupid questions repeatedly, you will get your ass kicked!

9. 'Your mama wears combat boots' never made sense to me---stop saying it! If she did, she would most likely be a vet and therefore, could kick your ass!

10. Bin Laden and the Taliban are not Communists, so stop saying 'Let's go kill those Commies!' And stop asking us where he is! Crystal balls are not standard issue in the military. That reminds me---if you see anyone calling those damn psychic phone numbers, let me know, so I can go kick their ass!

11. 'Flyboy' (Air Force), 'Jarhead' (Marines), 'Grunt' (Army), 'Squid' (Navy), 'Puddle Jumpers' (Coast Guard), etc., are terms of endearment we use describing each other. Unless you are a service member or vet, you have not earned the right to use them. That could get your ass kicked.

12. Last, but not least, whether or not you become a member of the military, support our troops and their families. Every Thanksgiving and religious holiday that you enjoy with family and friends, please remember that there are literally thousands of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen far from home wishing they could be with their families. Thank God for our military and the sacrifices they make every day. Without them, our country would get it's ass kicked."

"It is the Veteran, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press.

"It is the Veteran, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.

It is the Veteran, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.

"It is the Military who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

(Please pass this on so I won't have to kick your ass!) :-) "If you can read this, thank a teacher" If you are reading it in English, thank a Veteran "

I will add one more:

13. If you ever see anyone either standing for or singing the national anthem in Spanish - KICK THEIR ASS - OR CALL ME AND I WILL KICK THEIR ASS!!!!

Harriet Haxton

Do YOU remember well enough?

Reality check!

Mr. Bowden subtitles his book "The First Battle in America's War With Militant Islam"--and he is certainly right in underscoring the entire saga as a formative moment for contemporary Islamic militancy. Sunni fundamentalism, as an ideology inclined to see terrorism as a legitimate activity, predated the rise of the Shiite Khomeini. But the ayatollah's triumph over the shah and over his primary foreign backer--the U.S.--globally supercharged Islamic radicalism.

I may read the book, but I really need no new reminders of stuff clearly self-evident. Those that choose to hide their heads and call what is ongoing 'a law enforcement' issue will reap the whirlwind. Sadly, they'll drag us along if we let them!

H/T 'the strange lady'.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Don Surber: 41st Annual Vietnam Protest Held

Don Surber: 41st Annual Vietnam Protest Held

And a gooood time was had by all.

What HE Said!!

Stealing the words from my mouth. [grin]

I don't know this fellow, but his words could've come from my mouth... but clumsier.

I’m willing to fight to keep what I’ve earned and to prevent my small piece of West Virginia hillside from becoming part of the Islamic caliphate.
site stats